Apple's tune will completely change the second they get a leading LLM - Look at all the super important and useful things you can do with "Apple General Intelligence"!
Why Claude's Comment Paper Is a Poor Rebuttal
21–30 of 77 posts
Re: Why Claude's Comment Paper Is a Poor Rebuttal
#22> I would consider this a death blow paper to the current push for using LLMs and LRMs as the basis for AGI. Anytime I see "Artificial General Intelligence," "AGI," "ASI," etc., I mentally replace it with "something no one has defined meaningfully." Or the long version: "something about which no conclusions can be drawn because the proposed definitions lack sufficient precision and completeness." Or the short version…
“The Messiah.” The believers know it’s coming and will transform the world in ways that don’t even make sense to outsiders. They do not change their mind when it doesn’t happen as foreseen.
Re: Why Claude's Comment Paper Is a Poor Rebuttal
#23Has anyone come up with a definition of AGI where humans are near-universally capable of GI? These articles seem to be slowly pushing the boundaries past the point where slower humans are disbarred from intelligence. Many years ago I bumped in to Towers of Hanoi in a computer game and failed to solve it algorithmicly, so I suppose I'm lucky I only work a knowledge job rather than an intelligence-based one.
> These articles seem to be slowly pushing the boundaries past the point where slower humans are disbarred from intelligence.
It's not really pushing boundaries, a non trivial amount of humans has always been excluded from the definition of “human intelligence” (and with the ageing of the population, this number is only going up), and it makes sense, like how you don't consider blind individuals when you're comparing humans sight to other animals'.
Re: Why Claude's Comment Paper Is a Poor Rebuttal
#24Has anyone come up with a definition of AGI where humans are near-universally capable of GI? These articles seem to be slowly pushing the boundaries past the point where slower humans are disbarred from intelligence. Many years ago I bumped in to Towers of Hanoi in a computer game and failed to solve it algorithmicly, so I suppose I'm lucky I only work a knowledge job rather than an intelligence-based one.
People confuse performance and internal presentation. A simple calculator is vastly better as adding numbers than any human. An chess engine will rival any human grand master. No one would say that this got us closer to AGI. We could absolutely see LLMs that produce poetry that humans can not tell apart or even prefer to human made poetry. We could have LLMs that are perfectly able to convince humans that they have c…
I would absolutely say both the calculator and strong chess engines brought us closer.
Re: Why Claude's Comment Paper Is a Poor Rebuttal
#25> I would consider this a death blow paper to the current push for using LLMs and LRMs as the basis for AGI. Anytime I see "Artificial General Intelligence," "AGI," "ASI," etc., I mentally replace it with "something no one has defined meaningfully." Or the long version: "something about which no conclusions can be drawn because the proposed definitions lack sufficient precision and completeness." Or the short version…
One vague definition I see tossed around a lot "something can replace almost any human knowledge/white collar worker".
What does that mean in concrete terms? I'm not sure. Many of these models can already pass bar exams but how many can be lawyers? Probably none. What's missing?
Re: Why Claude's Comment Paper Is a Poor Rebuttal
#26Is there anything falsifiable in Apple's paper?
[deleted]
Re: Why Claude's Comment Paper Is a Poor Rebuttal
#27Has anyone come up with a definition of AGI where humans are near-universally capable of GI? These articles seem to be slowly pushing the boundaries past the point where slower humans are disbarred from intelligence. Many years ago I bumped in to Towers of Hanoi in a computer game and failed to solve it algorithmicly, so I suppose I'm lucky I only work a knowledge job rather than an intelligence-based one.
People confuse performance and internal presentation. A simple calculator is vastly better as adding numbers than any human. An chess engine will rival any human grand master. No one would say that this got us closer to AGI. We could absolutely see LLMs that produce poetry that humans can not tell apart or even prefer to human made poetry. We could have LLMs that are perfectly able to convince humans that they have c…
> Does that mean those LLMs have gotten consciousness and emotions? No.
Is this a belief statement, or a provable one?
Re: Why Claude's Comment Paper Is a Poor Rebuttal
#28The Apple paper does not look at its own data — the model outputs become short past some thresholds because the models reflectively realize they do not have the context to respond in the steps as requested, and suggest a Python program instead, just as a human would. One of the penalized environments is proven impossible to solve in the literature for n>6, seemingly unaware to the authors. I consider this and more the definitive rebuttal of the sloppiness of the paper: https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/5uw26uDdFbFQgKzih/bewar...
Re: Why Claude's Comment Paper Is a Poor Rebuttal
#29Has anyone come up with a definition of AGI where humans are near-universally capable of GI? These articles seem to be slowly pushing the boundaries past the point where slower humans are disbarred from intelligence. Many years ago I bumped in to Towers of Hanoi in a computer game and failed to solve it algorithmicly, so I suppose I'm lucky I only work a knowledge job rather than an intelligence-based one.
People confuse performance and internal presentation. A simple calculator is vastly better as adding numbers than any human. An chess engine will rival any human grand master. No one would say that this got us closer to AGI. We could absolutely see LLMs that produce poetry that humans can not tell apart or even prefer to human made poetry. We could have LLMs that are perfectly able to convince humans that they have c…
Consciousness is irrelevant to discussions of intelligence (much less AGI) unless you pick a circular definition for both.
This is “how many angels dance on the head of a pin” territory.
Re: Why Claude's Comment Paper Is a Poor Rebuttal
#30> I would consider this a death blow paper to the current push for using LLMs and LRMs as the basis for AGI. Anytime I see "Artificial General Intelligence," "AGI," "ASI," etc., I mentally replace it with "something no one has defined meaningfully." Or the long version: "something about which no conclusions can be drawn because the proposed definitions lack sufficient precision and completeness." Or the short version…
I know it when I see it