AGI? As if all value that humans offer can be compressed and transmitted in binary form?
You'd have a more serious debate about antigravity.
Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework
201–210 of 229 posts
Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps not. But I find myself using LLMs instead ofba search engine like Google. This does have value.
To you, yes, but the compute to return that search costs them far more than a simple search query and on top of that it's hard to monetize.
It doesn't, most of research is cached and most of the inference which is returned is also cached unless you are always asking unique things
Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, the 0.50$/h support infrastructure from the places that cannot refuse the deal. "frontier" LLMs currently cosplay a dunk with google and late alzheimer's. Surely, they speed up brute-forcing correct answer a lot by trying more likely texts. And? This overfed markov chain doesn't need supporing infrastructure — it IS supporting infastructure, for the cognitive something that is not being worked on prominently,…
Pretty much, it's just that these overfed Markov chains when given a proper harness and agentic framework are able to produce entire software projects in a fraction of the time it used to take. Kerbel AGI program hits the nail on the head.
Sorry, I tought you meant "support infrastructure" in a much wider sense — yeah, LLMs are frighteningly good at lockpicking tests using source code shaped inputs. It's just that they are also frighteningly good at finding insane ways to game the tests, too. I wouldn't say that LLMs are very "G" in the AI they do — present them with confusing semantics, and they fall off the self-contradiction cliff. No capability of developing theory systematically from observations.
Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wri…
So the only thing I am seeing here is physical or personal (I have no idea how you feel or what your emotions are. You are a black box just as an LLM is a black box.)
The only thing you mentioned is the fan fic and I would happily take the bet that an LLM could win out against a skilled person based on a blind vote.
Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]
Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because comparing the human brain and the way it is thinking and seeing and interacting to/with the world to physical/mechanical things like CPU/SSD brings with it huge abstraction gaps, to the point of making the comparison null.
except we aren't talking about internals of the brain - we are talking about definitions of the words, which are very different
The definitions of the words are contingent on human experience, even more so than "code" are "data" where we try to be more mechanistic, and still most people make the mistake of thinking they're distinct categories (spoiler: they're not; whether something is "code" or "data" depends entirely on your perspective).
If we want to draw computing device analogies, then the brain is an FPGA that is continuously reconfiguring itself throughout its runtime.
Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework
#207Every week we are 50% closer to shifting the goalpost... from the paper "AI systems already possess some capabilities not found in humans, such as LiDAR perception and native image generation". I don't know about them, but I can natively generate images in my mind.
> I don't know about them, but I can natively generate images in my mind. Not all humans can: Aphantasia! I think people will only accept a "Yes" to the question of "Is it AGI?" when large portions of the population end up excluded from the definition of "intelligence". So it begins! ;)
Fair, I forgot about aphantasia!
The whole plan for AGI is still built on creaky eugenic foundations: measuring intelligence to distinguish who is "intelligent" and who is not.
The whole idea of "human baselines" from the paper is terrifying, they even start it by excluding people without a high school degree! Looking at their 10 cognitive faculties ontology, there is no reason why people with lower education levels should be excluded...
Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework
#208It still seems like something is missing from all these frameworks. I feel like an average human wouldn't pass some of these metrics yet they are "generally intelligent". On the other hand they also wouldn't pass a lot of the expert questions that AI is good at. We're measuring something, and I think optimizing it is useful, I'd even say it is "intelligent" in some ways, but it doesn't seem "intelligent" in the same…
> I feel like an average human wouldn't pass some of these metrics yet they are "generally intelligent". On the other hand they also wouldn't pass a lot of the expert questions that AI is good at.
I think this approach is intentional. The philosophy is simply "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". What you're saying is true, but producing a system that exhibits all human cognitive capabilities is a better threshold for the (absolutely wild) claim of the existence of AGI.
Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework
#209When 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…
> A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today, despite not having language or technology, or any knowledge.
Source? This does not sound possibly true to me (by any common way we might measure intelligence).
Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework
#210Earlier 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.
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.
I don't know about OpenAI, but Nvidia's valuation seems more justifiable based on their actually known revenue and profit, and because it's publicly traded.
Though if the bubble(?) bursts and Nvidia starts selling fewer units year-over-year, that could be problematic.