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

171–180 of 229 posts

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#171

Post by astrange »

ixtli wrote: post #18
zug_zug wrote: post #17

I'm sorry what even is this? Giving $10k rewards for significant advancements toward "AGI"? What does "making a framework" even mean, it feels like a nothing post. When I think of what real AGI would be I think: - Passes the turing test - Writes a New York Times Bestseller without revealing it was written by AI - Writes journal articles that pass peer review - Wins a Nobel Prize - Writes a successful comedy routine -…

They’re slowly redefining AGI so they can use it for more marketing. If you showed someone from 1960 our LLMs from and told them “this is AI” I think they’d be astounded but a little confused because “artificial intelligence” definitely carried a very clear meaning in literature and media. Now it is marketing terminology and we’re no closer to having a meaningful definition for the word intelligence.

AI has been consistently defined as "anything we can't make a computer do yet" since 1970.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2024/06/20/not-ai/

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#172

Post by cheevly »

gtowey wrote: post #166
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.

Only because they have compressed and encoded the entire sum of human knowledge at their disposal. There are models for everything in there, but they can only do what has been done before. What's more amazing to me is the average human, only able to hold a relatively small body on knowledge in their mind, can generate things that are completely novel.

I hear this constantly. Can you produce something novel, right here, demonstrably, that an LLM couldnt have produced? Nobody ever can, but it’s sure easy to claim.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#174

Post by cheevly »

edgyquant wrote: post #170
SkyPuncher wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been pushing Opus pretty hard on my personal projects. While repeatability is very hard to do, I'm seeing glimpses of Opus being well beyond human capabilities. I'm increasingly convinced that the core mechanism of AGI is already here. We just need to figure out how to tie it together.

Can you give an example of something beyond the human level you’ve experienced?

Generating 3000 lines of esoteric rendering code within minutes, to raster generative graphics of anything you can imagine and it just works? From natural language instructions. Seriously think about that my dude.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#175

Post by Cyph0n »

cheevly wrote: post #172
gtowey wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only because they have compressed and encoded the entire sum of human knowledge at their disposal. There are models for everything in there, but they can only do what has been done before. What's more amazing to me is the average human, only able to hold a relatively small body on knowledge in their mind, can generate things that are completely novel.

I hear this constantly. Can you produce something novel, right here, demonstrably, that an LLM couldnt have produced? Nobody ever can, but it’s sure easy to claim.

Me personally? No. Us collectively? Absolutely.

Was an individual mind responsible for us as humanity landing on the moon? No. Could an individual mind have achieved this feat? Also no.

Put differently, we should be comparing the compressed blob of human knowledge against humanity as a collective rather than as individuals.

Of course, if my individual mind could be scaled such that it could learn and retain all of human knowledge in a few years, then sure, that would be a fair comparison.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#176

Post by sinenomine »

freeboon wrote: post #96
imetatroll wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I could gather that you disagreed with GP, but I don't see a salient point in your response? You are ostensibly challenging GP on the idea that a homo sapien baby from 200,000 years ago would have been capable of modern mental feats if raised in the present day. > This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective. Nice, seems like you have something meaningful to add. > At some point in our past, we were something mu…

If you think you are equipped to discuss the topic of evolution of general intelligence in homo, and you haven't read about GWAS and EDU PGS, then at this point you are either a naive layman, or a convinced discourse commando.

Because it is really hard and hopeless endeavor to make an objective case that the current human populations have similar PGS scores on key mental traits and diseases compared to 200k years ago.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#177

Post by sinenomine »

komali2 wrote: post #31
raincole wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today In other words, intelligence offers zero evolutionary advantage?

200k years just isn't much time for significant evolutionary changes considering the human population "reset" a couple times to very very small numbers.

If you read the papers and analyze the historical DNA, you can make case for significant PGS shifts in populations across a few centuries.

People really haven't processed this fact and its implications just yet.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#178

Post by sinenomine »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #68
danielbln wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but also antibiotics, vaccinations, child mortality down down down, life expectancy up up up. I wouldn't trade for living even 100 years prior compared to today, or 500-200k years ago for that matter. With everything wrong and sick with today's world, let's not take the achievements of our species for granted.

You wouldn't make that trade because you are part of the last generation (loosely speaking, a collection of generations) before it all comes crumbling down. We are living unbelievably privileged lives because we are burning all of the world's resources to the ground. In the process, we're destroying the ecosystem and driving a mass extinction event. Nothing about the way we live is sustainable long-term. We're litera…

You lost me when you started narrating the fossil doom visage.

With the current progress in solar, as well as the remaining coal, gas and uranium reserves, energy is not going to be what finishes our civilization.

While I don't think we are going to get true collapse, I think we are going to get a lot of technical progress compensating for biosocial deterioration.

The demographics, mental health and dysgenics are all real, quantified trends, and we are going to face the reality of less capable, less taxable population for the rest of this century. It's baked in at this point.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#179

Post by pylua »

cheevly wrote: post #172
gtowey wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only because they have compressed and encoded the entire sum of human knowledge at their disposal. There are models for everything in there, but they can only do what has been done before. What's more amazing to me is the average human, only able to hold a relatively small body on knowledge in their mind, can generate things that are completely novel.

I hear this constantly. Can you produce something novel, right here, demonstrably, that an LLM couldnt have produced? Nobody ever can, but it’s sure easy to claim.

[dead]

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#180

Post by cgg23 »

saalweachter wrote: post #100
beeflet wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And many of them so unexpected, given the unusual nature of their intellegence emerging from language prediction. They excel wherever you need to digest or produce massive amounts of text. They can synthesize some pretty impressive solutions from pre-existing stuff. Hell, I use it like a thesaurus to sus out words or phrases that are new or on the tip of my tounge. They have a great hold on the general corpus of info…

My current way of thinking about LLMs is "an echo of human intelligence embedded in language". It's kind of like in those sci fi or fantasy stories where someone dies and what's left behind as a ghost in the ether or the machine isn't actually them ; it's just an echo, an shallow, incomplete copy.

Residue ;)
Post reply on HN