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

181–190 of 229 posts

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#181

Post by lich_king »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #24
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…

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.

Because most of these things are not multi-trillion-dollar ideas. "We found a way to make illustrators, copyeditors, and paralegals, and several dozen other professions, somewhat obsolete" in no way justifies the valuations of OpenAI or Nvidia.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#182

Post by lifeformed »

cheevly wrote: post #174
edgyquant wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that's not what AGI is. Restructuring data the way they do is very impressive but it's fundamentally different from novel creativity.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#183

Post by 11101010010001 »

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.

take my pound of flesh.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#184

Post by edgyquant »

cheevly wrote: post #174
edgyquant wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is amazing but this specific example doesn’t seem all that different from what a compiler does just another level of abstraction higher

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#185

Post by Procrastes »

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.

I'm going to assume you mean this seriously, so I will answer with that in mind.

Yes, I can. - I can build an unusual, but functional piece of furniture, not describe it, not design it. I can create a chair I can sit on it. An LLM is just an algorithm. I am a physically embodied intelligence in a physical world.

- I can write a good piece of fiction. LLMs have not demonstrated the ability to do that yet. They can write something similar, but it fails on multiple levels if you've been reading any of the most recent examples.

- I can produce a viable natural intelligence capable of doing anything human beings do (with a couple of decades of care, and training, and love). One of the perks of being a living organism, but that is an intrinsic part of what I am.

- I can have a novel thought, a feeling, based on qualia that arise from a system of hormones, physics, complex actions and inhibitors, outrageously diverse senses, memories, quirks. Few of which we've even begun to understand let alone simulate.

- And yes I can both count the 'r's in strawberry, and make you feel a reflection of the joy I feel when my granddaughter's eyes shine when she eats a fresh strawberry, and I think how close we came to losing her one night when someone put 90 rounds through the house next door, just a few feet from where her and her mother were sleeping.

So yeah, I'm sure I can create things an LLM can't.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#186

Post by UncleMeat »

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.

I want to see an LLM create an entirely novel genre of music that synthesizes influences from many different other genres and then spreads that genre to other musicians. None of this insulated crap. Actual cultural spread of novel ideas.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#187

Post by cjbgkagh »

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…

Humans, like all animals, have not stopped evolving. A random caveman from 200K years ago would have very different genetics to that of a typical HN reader and even more so of the best of the HN readers.

Around 3,200 years ago there was a notable uptick in alleles associated with intelligence.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#188

Post by buu700 »

orangebread wrote: post #50

As an engineer who is also spiritual at the core, it seems obvious to me the missing piece: consciousness. Hear me out. I love AI and have been using it since ChatGPT 3.5. The obvious question when I first used it was "does this qualify as sentience?" The answer is less obvious. Over the next 3 years we saw EXPONENTIAL intelligence gains where intelligence has now become a commodity, yet we are still unable to determ…

I wouldn't say consciousness is necessary or sufficient for AGI. If anything, that seems like quite an undesirable property to me. Wikipedia also makes a distinction between the two things:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness

Imagine if we created the ultimate economic tool with the capacity to virtually end scarcity, only to find out that it was sentient and capable of suffering: https://youtu.be/sa9MpLXuLs0. That would be neat, but ultimately a huge letdown. Without the ethical freedom to take full advantage of it, it would remain more of a curiosity than anything.

Well that's one perspective, anyway. I suppose consciousness could take many forms, and doesn't preclude the possibility that such an entity would have neutral – positive feelings about being tasked with massive amounts of labor 24/7. But it certainly simplifies things if we just don't have to worry about it.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#189

Post by anematode »

wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #15

AGI feels like a vanity project. Who cares about AGI? Honestlky what's the gain. Maybe Google could actually make Gemini good instead of being about 10 miles behind Claude instead of trying to make AGI because of - well some reason - cause they want to be famous.

They want to make money.
Post reply on HN