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

Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 388 posts

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#201

Post by vidarh »

riffraff wrote: post #166
bsaul wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

« I don't believe we've seen any evidence of this. » I think chatgpt did show proof of what was considered at least until very recently « intelligence ». aka: understand enough about context and concepts to provide relevant answers to very complex and open questions.

I think this is the culprit: ChatGPT does not understand , as proven by hallucinations, by being wrong on certain questions or puzzle etc.. It just seems to understand. This is useful, and deeply impressive, but it's not the same thing.

Humans are confidently wrong about all kinds of things all the time. We don't call it hallucination other than for very specific, limited subsets. We call each other names over it, call it mistakes, stupidity, or lies. In fact, we structure large parts of society around it (the presence of multiple contradictory world religions means the majority of the worlds population goes through life being confidently wrong). It's just being confidently wrong about some subjects is more socially acceptable than others.

ChatGPT clearly needs reinforcement to know its limits the way humans are constantly reinforced from childhood that making confident claims about things we don't actually know well is often going to have negative consequences, but until we've seen the result of doing that, I don't think we have any foundation to say anything about whether ChatGPT's current willingness to make up answers means it's level of understanding is in any way fundamentally different from that of humans or not.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#202

Post by vidarh »

kumarvvr wrote: post #156
bsaul wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

« I don't believe we've seen any evidence of this. » I think chatgpt did show proof of what was considered at least until very recently « intelligence ». aka: understand enough about context and concepts to provide relevant answers to very complex and open questions.

Is it understanding or, generating closest possible set of tokens that are accepted as a response to an received input of tokens?

How do we know those two are different?

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#203

Post by oittaa »

pnpnp wrote: post #19
wg0 wrote: post #13

The other few things possible in next few years for past few years are: 1. Fusion 2. Self driving cars. 3. Ubiquitous, generally available and stable 8192 bit quantum computers. 4. High energy density grid scale batteries. Just few more "this maybe the... what could revolutionize..." articles away. What we forget is that it is in these people's business interest (executives making such statements) to state the exagge…

Just a point with #4. Grid scale batteries don’t need to be “high energy density” like EVs. I would argue that cost is probably the biggest factor, and it’s already across the cost/benefit barrier in many markets.

This. It surprises me every time when battery or any "green" technology is discussed here and 90% of Americans keep parroting Trump's talking points. For example one of the comments above is talking about how EVs are just "a rich boy's toy".

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#204

Post by FredPret »

ilyt wrote: post #193
FredPret wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything in the universe must by definition be rational. Chemical reactions always happen a certain way, physics always works a certain way, numbers add up the same every time. If something seems irrational, that's because there are rational things layered on top of one another in a way that creates a misapprehension in a partially-informed observer.

Quantum effects don't. There are rules but results are within range random.

That's not proven yet. Random behaviour might be due to undiscovered inherent properties.

But even if there are random things, are they thus irrational? Or just unpredictable? Is today's lottery number wrong in some way?

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#205

Post by worrycue »

paxys wrote: post #16

I predict that the fight will be more about defining intelligence than inventing it. No one knows what AGI is. There isn't going to be some switch that flips to take us from AI to AGI. These tools we have today will just keep getting incrementally better, and some new ones will pop up, and at some point we'll have to stop and say "yeah, this is good enough to qualify". And everyone will have their own opinion on what…

> I predict that the fight will be more about defining intelligence than inventing it.

I don't think anyone really cares. What's important is what it can do.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#206

Post by zamnos »

TheDudeMan wrote: post #26
wg0 wrote: post #13

The other few things possible in next few years for past few years are: 1. Fusion 2. Self driving cars. 3. Ubiquitous, generally available and stable 8192 bit quantum computers. 4. High energy density grid scale batteries. Just few more "this maybe the... what could revolutionize..." articles away. What we forget is that it is in these people's business interest (executives making such statements) to state the exagge…

I think we'll have full-blown AGI before fusion and before world-changing levels of quantum computing. Which is to say, we won't be around to see fusion and world-changing quantum :( But there's still time for robo-taxis!

The future is here, its just unevenly distributed. If you live in a specific collection of neighborhoods in San Francisco or Phoenix, robo taxis are already here.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#207

Post by kranke155 »

vidarh wrote: post #175
kranke155 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hallucinations are an indication that something is missing, surely? Does chatGPT need a way to verify reality for itself to become truly intelligent ?

Humans "hallucinate" in the AI sense (it's an awful word that obscures how often we do it) all the time too. You'll find people confidently make claims not supported by data or indeed by any of their own data all the time, where when you poke around in their justifications you'll find they have none. The key difference appears a combination of two factors: We appear to be more likely to have learnt which subjects we'…

Humans have a way to verify reality. Their senses + scientific method

Saying “most humans make dumb statements” is not a defense to build a machine that makes dumb statements imo

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#208

Post by vidarh »

maister wrote: post #194
vidarh wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans "hallucinate" in the AI sense (it's an awful word that obscures how often we do it) all the time too. You'll find people confidently make claims not supported by data or indeed by any of their own data all the time, where when you poke around in their justifications you'll find they have none. The key difference appears a combination of two factors: We appear to be more likely to have learnt which subjects we'…

> Humans "hallucinate" in the AI sense (it's an awful word that obscures how often we do it) all the time too. Agreed. I'd like to add another point to the discussion. It seems to me, as if LLMs are held to a higher standard regarding telling the truth than humans are. In my opinion the reason for this is that computers have been traditionally used to solve deterministic tasks and that people are not used to them mak…

LLMs are also probed a lot more for the limits of their knowledge. Consider the thousands of hours of peoples time that have gone into poking at the limits of the understanding of ChatGPT alone.

Imagine subjecting a random human to the same battery of conversations and judging the truthfulness of their answers.

Now, imagine doing the same to a child too young to have had many years of reinforcement of the social consequences of not clearly distinguishing fantasy from perceived truth.

I do think a human adult would (still) be likely to be overall better at distinguishing truth from fiction when replying, but I'm not at all confident that a human child would.

I think LLMs will need more reinforcement from probing the limits of their knowledge to make it easier to rely on their responses, but I also think one of the reasons people hold LLMs to the standard they do is also that they "sound" knowledgeable. If ChatGPT spoke like a 7 year old, nobody would take issue with it making a lot of stuff up. But since ChatGPT is more eloquent than most adults, it's easy to expect it to behave like a human adult. LLMs have gaps that are confusing to us because the signs we tend to go by to judge someones intelligence are not reliable with LLMs.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#209

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

superzamp wrote: post #134
kranke155 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hallucinations are an indication that something is missing, surely? Does chatGPT need a way to verify reality for itself to become truly intelligent ?

Just the other day, my friend asked me if I knew what this bug she took a picture of was. I replied it looked like a house centipede, and it was indeed one. Two things: 1) My confidence was around 80%, without any sense of absolute certainty. 2) I had no idea why I knew that, and where did I originally learned about what a house centipede looks like.

If you have genuinely no idea why you know that and where you learned it, you should probably seek medical advice concerning maybe early onset dementia or some such.

There's a good argument to be made you learned about potentially dangerous insects as a child, from books aimed at children. A reasonable person would make this argument. It's also likely that you retained that information because your would-be peers who aren't around, aren't around because their ascendants inserted their genetic material in to the humanity's descent's to a lesser extent than your extant peers.

You might not be able to immediately recall where and when you learned something, and that shouldn't be equated with genuinely having no idea.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#210

Post by andrepd »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #199
andrepd wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ChatGPT does this very well Lol, this is precisely what chatgpt doesn't do well at all! It fails to understand simple concepts, logical inference, simple math, etc.

It’s terrible and math and logic, but ChatGPT is amazing at concepts—that’s why it is so powerful. It doesn’t work programmatically—that’s why it fails at logic. But it can reason inductively very very well. Do you have an example besides logic/math where it doesn’t understand simple concepts?

What do you mean exactly "besides math/logic"? Because logic underpins everything we think.

For example it cannot identify musical chords because despite (I presume) ample training material including explanations of how exactly this works, it cannot reasonable represent this as an abstract rigorous rule, as humans do. So I ask what is C E G and it tells me C major correctly, as it presumably appears many times throughout the training set, yet I ask F Ab Db and it does not tell me Db major, because it did not understand the rules at all.

In a sense though, this is just a logic problem.

Post reply on HN