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

François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 230 posts

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#171

Post by starchild3001 »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #102

There is some kind of massive brigading happening on this thread. Lots of thoughtful comments are downmodded or flagged (including mine, which I thought was pretty thoughtful. I even said poop instead of shit.). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44492241 My comment was basically instantly flagged. I see at least 3 other flagged comments that I can't imagine deserve to be flagged.

I've noticed that Hacker News has become increasingly strict with tone lately; almost to the point of aggressive "tone policing." It feels like you’re expected to maintain a very diplomatic tone: praise the author, acknowledge the strengths of the article or video, and only then, very carefully, offer any criticism. You can't just bash it, and not get downvoted :)

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#172

Post by yorwba »

cubefox wrote: post #145
yorwba wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the people behind the ARC Prize agree that getting a high score doesn't mean we have AGI. (They already updated the benchmark once to make it harder.) But an AGI should get a similarly high score as humans do. So current models that get very low scores are definitely not AGI, and likely quite far away from it.

> I think the people behind the ARC Prize agree that getting a high score doesn't mean we have AGI The benchmark was literally called ARC-AGI. Only after OpenAI cracked it, they started backtracking and saying that it doesn't test for true AGI. Which undermines the whole premise of a benchmark.

It does test for AGI. For its absence.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#173

Post by drdeca »

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #139
MPSimmons wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we actually even have a good definition of "This is what AGI is, and here are the stationary goal posts that, when these thresholds are met, then we will have AGI". If you judged human intelligence by our AI standards, then would humans even pass as Natural General Intelligence? Human intelligence tests are constantly changing, being invalidated, and rerolled as well. I maintain that today's modern LLMs…

The current definition and goal of AGI is “Artificial intelligence good enough to replace every employee for cheaper” and much of the difficulty people have in defining it is cognitive dissonance about the goal.

I’d remove the “for cheaper” part? (And also, only necessary for the employees whose jobs are “cognitive tasks”, not ones that are based on their bodies. So like, doesn’t need to be able to lift boxes or have a nice smile.)

If something would be better at every cognitive task than every human, if it ran a trillion times faster, I would consider that to be AGI even if it isn’t that useful at its actual speed.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#174

Post by jenadine »

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #139
MPSimmons wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we actually even have a good definition of "This is what AGI is, and here are the stationary goal posts that, when these thresholds are met, then we will have AGI". If you judged human intelligence by our AI standards, then would humans even pass as Natural General Intelligence? Human intelligence tests are constantly changing, being invalidated, and rerolled as well. I maintain that today's modern LLMs…

The current definition and goal of AGI is “Artificial intelligence good enough to replace every employee for cheaper” and much of the difficulty people have in defining it is cognitive dissonance about the goal.

Or this definition of AGI from OpenAI and Microsoft:

> [AGI is achieved when] AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#175

Post by EigenLord »

I've been thinking lately about how AGI runs up against the No Free Lunch Theorem. This is what irritates me: science is not determining the narrative. Money is. I highly recommend mathematician David Wolpert's work on the topic. I think he inadvertently proved that ASI is physically impossible. Certainly he proved that AOI (artificial omniscient intelligence) is impossible.

One thing he showed is that you can't have a universe with two omniscient intelligences (as it would be intractable for them to predict the other's behavior.)

It's also very questionable whether "humanlike" intelligence is truly general in the first place. I think cognitive neurobiologists would agree that we have a specific "cognitive niche", and while this symbolic niche seems sufficiently general for a lot of problems, there are animals that make us look stupid in other respects. This whole idea that there is some secret sauce special algorithm for universal intelligence is extremely suspect. We flatter ourselves and have committed to a fundamental anthropomorphic fallacy that seems almost cartoonishly elementary for all the money behind it.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#176

Post by FeepingCreature »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #92
FeepingCreature wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just train it on the goal. Then it has that goal. Alternately, you can train it on following a goal and then you have a system where you can specify a goal. At sufficient scale, a model will already contain goal-following algorithms because those help predict the next token when the model is basetrained on goal-following entities, ie. humans. Goal-driven RL then brings those algorithms to prominence.

How do you figure goal generation and supervised goal training are interchangeable?

Layman warning! But "at sufficient scale", like with learning-to-learn, I'd expect it to pick up largely meta-patterns along with (if not rather than) behavioral habits, especially if the goal is left open, because strategies generalize across goals and thus get reinforcement from every instance of goal pursuit during base training.

But also my intuition is that humans are "trained on goals" and then reverse-engineer an explicit goal structure using self-observation and prosaic reasoning. If it works for us, why not the LLMs?

edit: Example: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.11120 "Tell me about yourself: LLMs are aware of their learned behaviors". When you train a LLM on an exclusively implicit goal, the LLM explicitly realizes that it has been trained on this goal, indicating (IMO) that the implicit training hit explicit strategies.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#177

Post by fragmede »

EigenLord wrote: post #175

I've been thinking lately about how AGI runs up against the No Free Lunch Theorem. This is what irritates me: science is not determining the narrative. Money is. I highly recommend mathematician David Wolpert's work on the topic. I think he inadvertently proved that ASI is physically impossible. Certainly he proved that AOI (artificial omniscient intelligence) is impossible. One thing he showed is that you can't have…

When hasn't money determined the narrative?

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#178

Post by fragmede »

whattheheckheck wrote: post #166
cubefox wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting a high score on ARC doesn't mean we have AGI and Chollet has always said as much AFAIK He only seems to say this recently, since OpenAI cracked the ARC-AGI benchmark. But in the original 2019 abstract he said this: > We argue that ARC can be used to measure a human-like form of general fluid intelligence and that it enables fair general intelligence comparisons between AI systems and humans. https://arxiv.o…

Okay, true AGI would solve the coordination problem for all humans everywhere and usher in a post scarcity utopia. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ We can simply check the news every day until it's built...

That's ASI, artificial super intelligence, not AGI.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#179

Post by fragmede »

bumby wrote: post #121
criddell wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AGI test I think makes sense is to put it in a robot body and let it navigate the world. Can I take the robot to my back yard and have it weed my vegetable garden? Can I show it how to fold my laundry? Can I take it to the grocery store and tell it "go pick up 4 yellow bananas and two avocados that will be ready to eat in the next day or two, and then meet me in dairy"? Can I ask it to dice an onion for me during…

I think the next harder level in AGI testing would be “convince my kids to weed the garden and fold the laundry” :-)

Convincing kids is AGI, convincing adults is ASI.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#180

Post by [deleted] »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #92
FeepingCreature wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just train it on the goal. Then it has that goal. Alternately, you can train it on following a goal and then you have a system where you can specify a goal. At sufficient scale, a model will already contain goal-following algorithms because those help predict the next token when the model is basetrained on goal-following entities, ie. humans. Goal-driven RL then brings those algorithms to prominence.

How do you figure goal generation and supervised goal training are interchangeable?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN