Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 229 posts

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#151

Post by roncesvalles »

imtringued wrote: post #49
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of things LLMs can do is insane. It's interesting to me how much effort the AI companies (and bloggers) put into claiming they can do things they can't, when there's almost an unlimited list of things they actually can do.

This reminds me of "Devin". You know, the first "AI software engineer", which had the hype of the day but turned into a huge flop. They had ridiculous demos of Devin e.g. working as a freelancer and supposedly earning money from it.

We're waaay past the era when getting funded meant your idea had any promise at all.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#152

Post by nomel »

lccerina wrote: post #130

Every week we are 50% closer to shifting the goalpost... from the paper "AI systems already possess some capabilities not found in humans, such as LiDAR perception and native image generation". I don't know about them, but I can natively generate images in my mind.

> I don't know about them, but I can natively generate images in my mind.

Not all humans can: Aphantasia!

I think people will only accept a "Yes" to the question of "Is it AGI?" when large portions of the population end up excluded from the definition of "intelligence". So it begins! ;)

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#153

Post by jorvi »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #147
mlmonkey wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like the company (Cognition) is actively hiring (20+ job openings last I checked). That doesn't sound like a "flop" to me...

Think about: why would they be hiring actual human beings if Devin actually works? Seems like the purest example of "dogfooding"...

This generally just keeps being the "the Emperor has no clothes" moment for all these AI bull companies.

Microsoft just replaced their native Windows Copilot application with an Electron one. Highly ironic.

Obviously the native version should run much faster and will use less memory. If Copilot (via either GPT or Claude) is so godlike at either agentic or guided coding, why didn't they just improve or rewrite the native Copilot application to be blazing fast, with all known bugs fixed?

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#154

Post by delecti »

mrkstu wrote: post #110

To me, a lot of what makes us sentient is our continuity. I even (briefly) remember my dreams when I wake up, and my dreams are influenced by my state of mind as I enter it. LLMs 'turn on' when given a question and essentially 'die' immediately after answering a question. What kind of work is going on with designing an LLM type AI that is continuously 'conscious' and giving it will? The 'claws' seem to be running all…

I think you're right, but also that LLMs are showing that sentience isn't necessarily required for AGI.

For exactly the reasons you mention, I don't expect sentience to arise out of LLMs. They have nowhere for an interiority or mind to live. And even if there were a new generation of transformers that did have some looping "mind", where they could "think about" what they're "thinking about", their concepts of things wouldn't really correspond to... things. Without senses to integrate knowledge across domains they're just associating text.

I haven't heard about anyone creating trying to create model that have an interior loop and also integration with sensory input, but I don't expect we would unless it ends up working.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#155

Post by 2snakes »

orangebread wrote: post #145
torben-friis wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any reason to introduce that whole extra invisible, unprovable complex system? Is there anything the materialist model can not explain that you feel your model does, or is it just a case of "I don't like the alternative"?

Depends on what you qualify as proof. Much of what I said was experiential and corroborated with other people who have had similar experiences as I've had. I know that in the scientific world it would be dismissed without as much a glance. But I'm not here to convince everyone of my perspective, I'm just adding one that the engineering world has not examined or introduced given the current pursuit. And it's not a mat…

[dead]

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#156

Post by jacquesm »

pocketarc wrote: post #20

When people imagined AI/AGI, they imagined something that can reason like we can, except at the speed of a computer, which we always envisioned would lead to the singularity. In a short period of time, AI would be so far ahead of us and our existing ideas, that the world would become unrecognizable. That's not what's happening here, and it's worth remembering: A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as int…

> That _is_ useful, and the more progress we make, the better.

I would be happy to agree if we had the solutions for the societal problems that will create in hand.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#157

Post by jacquesm »

boca_honey wrote: post #61
NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for example?

Claiming they can be reliable lawyers.[1] Claiming they can give safe, regulated financial advice. [2] Claiming you can put your whole operation on autopilot with minimal oversight and no negative consequences. [3] [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/generative-ai-exaggeration-o... [3] https://www.answerconnect.com/blog/business-tips/ai-customer...

Medical...

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#159

Post by inerte »

imetatroll wrote: post #76
pocketarc wrote: post #20

When people imagined AI/AGI, they imagined something that can reason like we can, except at the speed of a computer, which we always envisioned would lead to the singularity. In a short period of time, AI would be so far ahead of us and our existing ideas, that the world would become unrecognizable. That's not what's happening here, and it's worth remembering: A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as int…

This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective. At some point in our past, we were something much less intelligent than we are now. Our intelligence didn't spring out of thin air. Whether or not AI can evolve is yet to be seen I think.

Sure, but then basically whatever it was, it was not "us". "Us" and our intelligence had to appear at some point. It's 100% not "anti-evolutionary" to say some years ago humans became as mentally capable as a baby born today. We just have to figure out how many years ago that was. It wasn't last decade. As far as I know most anthropologists agree it was around ~70k years ago (not 200k).

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#160

Post by nurettin »

pocketarc wrote: post #20

When people imagined AI/AGI, they imagined something that can reason like we can, except at the speed of a computer, which we always envisioned would lead to the singularity. In a short period of time, AI would be so far ahead of us and our existing ideas, that the world would become unrecognizable. That's not what's happening here, and it's worth remembering: A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as int…

> caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today, despite not having language

There is evidence to the contrary. Not having language puts your mental faculties in a significant disadvantage. Specifically, left brain athropy. See the critical period hypothesis. Perhaps you mean lacking spoken language rather than having none at all?

https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/curtiss/1974%20-%20The%2...

Post reply on HN