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

181–190 of 230 posts

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

#181

Post by FilosofumRex »

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…

AGI can't be defined, because it's the means by which definitions are created. You can only measure it contemporaneously by some consensus method such as ARC.

You can't define AGI, any more than you can define ASA (artificial sports ability). Intelligence, like athleticism changes both quantitively and qualitatively. The Greek Olympic champions of 2K yrs ago wouldn't qualify for high school championships today, however, they were once regarded as great athletes.

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

#182

Post by fragmede »

goatlover wrote: post #160
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…

Because an important part of being a Natural general Intelligence is having a body and interacting with the world. Data from Star Trek is a good example of an AGI.

Given the actions of Data's brother, I think Data qualifies as a benevolent ASI.

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

#184

Post by stared »

I dislike the term AGI, as intelligence (of any type) always involves tradeoffs. Being exceptional at solving 2D grid-based pattern tasks is just one skill. Humans have a strong visual bias, while some hypothetical superintelligent slime molds might value entirely different problems. I know smart people (PhDs in STEM fields at major universities) who struggle with geometric puzzles, yet excel at linguistic or algebraic ones.

Getting a perfect ARC-AGI-n score isn't a smoking gun indicator of general intelligence. Rather, it simply means we're now able to solve a class of problems previously beyond AI capabilities (which is exciting in itself!).

I view ARC-AGI primarily as a benchmark (similar in spirit to Raven's matrices) that makes memorization substantially harder. Compare this with vocabulary-focused IQ tests, where cognitive skills certainly matter, but results depend heavily on exposure to a particular language.

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

#185

Post by cess11 »

qoez wrote: post #4

I feel like I'm the only one who isn't convinced getting a high score on the ARC eval test means we have AGI. It's mostly about pattern matching (and some of it ambiguous even for humans what the actual true response aught to be). It's like how in humans there's lots of different 'types' of intelligence, and just overfitting on IQ tests doesn't in my mind convince me a person is actually that smart.

Much like other forms of psychometry, especially related to so called intelligence, it's mainly about stratification and discrimination for ideological purposes.

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

#186

Post by Miraltar »

crazylogger wrote: post #88
qoez wrote: post #4

I feel like I'm the only one who isn't convinced getting a high score on the ARC eval test means we have AGI. It's mostly about pattern matching (and some of it ambiguous even for humans what the actual true response aught to be). It's like how in humans there's lots of different 'types' of intelligence, and just overfitting on IQ tests doesn't in my mind convince me a person is actually that smart.

I think next year's AI benchmarks are going to be like this project: https://www.anthropic.com/research/project-vend-1 Give the AI tools and let it do real stuff in the world: "FounderBench": Ask the AI to build a successful business, whatever that business may be - the AI decides. Maybe try to get funded by YC - hiring a human presenter for Demo Day is allowed. They will be graded on profit / loss, and valuation. Te…

This sounds like a terrible idea to me, you're training intelligent computer to aim for power. It's fine as long as they're bad but if they get good then we have a problem

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

#187

Post by spectre9 »

stared wrote: post #184

I dislike the term AGI, as intelligence (of any type) always involves tradeoffs. Being exceptional at solving 2D grid-based pattern tasks is just one skill. Humans have a strong visual bias, while some hypothetical superintelligent slime molds might value entirely different problems. I know smart people (PhDs in STEM fields at major universities) who struggle with geometric puzzles, yet excel at linguistic or algebra…

Call me crazy but we should be optimizing for human visual intelligence rather than slime mold symbolic space

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

#188

Post by ACCount36 »

spectre9 wrote: post #187
stared wrote: post #184

I dislike the term AGI, as intelligence (of any type) always involves tradeoffs. Being exceptional at solving 2D grid-based pattern tasks is just one skill. Humans have a strong visual bias, while some hypothetical superintelligent slime molds might value entirely different problems. I know smart people (PhDs in STEM fields at major universities) who struggle with geometric puzzles, yet excel at linguistic or algebra…

Call me crazy but we should be optimizing for human visual intelligence rather than slime mold symbolic space

It's obvious why having human visual intelligence in a machine is desirable.

But if slime mold symbolic space is better suited for something like understanding of biology or abstract math, that's a good damn reason to go for the slime mold route too.

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

#189

Post by batmansmk »

lostphilosopher wrote: post #89
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting a high score on ARC doesn't mean we have AGI and Chollet has always said as much AFAIK, it's meant to push the AI research space in a positive direction. Being able to solve ARC problems is probably a pre-requisite to AGI. It's a directional push into the fog of war, with the claim being that we should explore that area because we expect it's relevant to building AGI.

We don't really have a true test that means "if we pass this test we have AGI" but we have a variety of tests (like ARC) that we believe any true AGI would be able to pass. It's a "necessary but not sufficient" situation. Also ties directly to the challenge in defining what AGI really means. You see a lot of discussions of "moving the goal posts" around AGI, but as I see it we've never had goal posts, we've just got…

One of the very first slides of François’ presentation is about defining AGI. Do you have anything that opposes his synthesis of the two (50 years old) takes on this definition?

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

#190

Post by ACCount36 »

bogtog wrote: post #91

I wonder how much slow progress on ARC can be explained by their visual properties making them easy for humans but hard for LLMs. My impression is that models are pretty bad at interpreting grids of characters. Yesterday, I was trying to get Claude to convert a message into a cipher where it converted a 98-character string into 7x14 grid where the sequential letters moved 2-right and 1-down (i.e., like a knight it ch…

There are some major hints that this is indeed the case.

I've seen a simple ARC-AGI test that took the open set, and doubled every image in it. Every pixel became a 2x2 block of pixels.

If LLMs were bottlenecked solely by reasoning or logic capabilities, this wouldn't change their performance all that much, because the solution doesn't change all that much.

Instead, the performance dropped sharply - which hints that perception is the bottleneck.

Post reply on HN