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

Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

garymarcus.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 331 posts

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#211

Post by MoonGhost »

jltsiren wrote: post #184
FINDarkside wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But also his point about AGI is incorrect. AI that will perform on the level of average human in every task is AGI by definition.

AGI should perform on the level of an experienced professional in every task. The average human is useless for pretty much everything but capable of learning to perform almost any task, given enough motivation and effort. Or perhaps AGI should be able to reach the level of an experienced professional in any task. Maybe a single system can't be good at everything, if there are inherent trade-offs in learning to perfor…

> The average human is useless for pretty much everything but capable of learning to perform almost any task

But only the limited number of tasks per human.

> Or perhaps AGI should be able to reach the level of an experienced professional in any task.

Even if it performs just better than untrained human but on any task this will be superhuman level. As no human can do it.

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#212

Post by adastra22 »

usef- wrote: post #204
FINDarkside wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But also his point about AGI is incorrect. AI that will perform on the level of average human in every task is AGI by definition.

Yes. I wonder if he was thinking of ASI, not AGI

Most people are. One of my pet peeves is that people falsely equate AGI with ASI, constantly. We have had full AGI for years now. It is a powerful tool, but not what people tend to think of as god-like “AGI.”

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#213

Post by pzo »

FINDarkside wrote: post #108
thomasahle wrote: post #96

> 1. Humans have trouble with complex problems and memory demands. True! But incomplete. We have every right to expect machines to do things we can’t. [...] If we want to get to AGI, we will have to better. I don't get this argument. The paper is about "whether RLLMs can think". If we grant "humans make these mistakes too", but also "we still require this ability in our definition of thinking", aren't we saying "thin…

Agreed. But also his point about AGI is incorrect. AI that will perform on the level of average human in every task is AGI by definition.

Why AGI need to be even as good as average human. If you get someone with 80 IQ is still smart enough to reason and do plenty of menial tasks. Also not sure why AGI need to be as good in every task? Average human will excel others at few tasks and sux terribly in many others.

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#214

Post by whatagreatboy »

thomasahle wrote: post #96

> 1. Humans have trouble with complex problems and memory demands. True! But incomplete. We have every right to expect machines to do things we can’t. [...] If we want to get to AGI, we will have to better. I don't get this argument. The paper is about "whether RLLMs can think". If we grant "humans make these mistakes too", but also "we still require this ability in our definition of thinking", aren't we saying "thin…

the real ability of intelligence is to correct mistakes in a gradual and consistent way.

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#215

Post by adastra22 »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #169
FINDarkside wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's very widely accepted definition and there's really no competing definitions either as far as I know. While some people might think AGI means superintelligence, it's only because they've heard the term but never bothered to look up what it means.

Doesn't the "G" in AGI stand for "General" as in "Generally Good at everything"?

Yes, but “good at” here has a very limited, technical meaning, which can be oversimplified as “better than random chance.”

If something can be better than random chance in any arbitrary problem domain it was not trained on, that is AGI.

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#216

Post by jsnell »

Brystephor wrote: post #178
jes5199 wrote: post #167

I think the Apple paper is practically a hack job - the problem was set up in such a way that the reasoning models must do all of their reasoning before outputting any of their results. Imagine a human trying to solve something this way: you’d have to either memorize the entire answer before speaking or come up with a simple pattern you could do while reciting that takes significantly less brainpower - and past a cer…

Forcing reasoning is analogous to requiring a student to show their work when solving a problem if im understanding the paper correctly. > you’d have to either memorize the entire answer before speaking or come up with a simple pattern you could do while reciting that takes significantly less brainpower This part i dont understand. Why would coming up with an algorithm (e.g. a simple pattern) and reciting it be impos…

The paper doesn't mention it because either the researchers did not care to check the outputs manually, or reporting what was in the outputs would have made it obvious what their motives were.

When this research has been reproduced, the "failures" on the Tower of Hanoi are the model printing out a bunch of steps, saying there is no point in doing it thousands of times more. And they they'd either output an the algorithm for printing the rest in words or code

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#217

Post by [deleted] »

astrange wrote: post #207
jazzypants wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're referring to the founder of that website, Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is controversial due to his 2023 Time article that called for a complete halt on the development of AI. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky https://time.com/6266923/ai-eliezer-yudkowsky-open-letter-no...

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#218

Post by jltsiren »

MoonGhost wrote: post #211
jltsiren wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGI should perform on the level of an experienced professional in every task. The average human is useless for pretty much everything but capable of learning to perform almost any task, given enough motivation and effort. Or perhaps AGI should be able to reach the level of an experienced professional in any task. Maybe a single system can't be good at everything, if there are inherent trade-offs in learning to perfor…

> The average human is useless for pretty much everything but capable of learning to perform almost any task But only the limited number of tasks per human. > Or perhaps AGI should be able to reach the level of an experienced professional in any task. Even if it performs just better than untrained human but on any task this will be superhuman level. As no human can do it.

The G in AGI stands for "general", not for "superhuman". An intelligence that can't learn to perform information processing and decision-making tasks people routinely do does not seem very general to me.

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#219

Post by Someone »

pzo wrote: post #213
FINDarkside wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But also his point about AGI is incorrect. AI that will perform on the level of average human in every task is AGI by definition.

Why AGI need to be even as good as average human. If you get someone with 80 IQ is still smart enough to reason and do plenty of menial tasks. Also not sure why AGI need to be as good in every task? Average human will excel others at few tasks and sux terribly in many others.

Because that’s how AGI is defined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...: “Artificial general intelligence (AGI)—sometimes called human‑level intelligence AI—is a type of artificial intelligence that would match or surpass human capabilities across virtually all cognitive tasks”

But yes, you’re right that software needs not be AGI to be useful. Artificial narrow intelligence or weak AI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_artificial_intelligence) can be extremely useful, even something as narrow as a services that transcribes speech and can’t do anything else.

Re: Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short

#220

Post by tomhow »

astrange wrote: post #207
jazzypants wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're referring to the founder of that website, Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is controversial due to his 2023 Time article that called for a complete halt on the development of AI. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky https://time.com/6266923/ai-eliezer-yudkowsky-open-letter-no...

[flagged]

Please don't do this here.
Post reply on HN