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

211–220 of 229 posts

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#211

Post by mxkopy »

reverius42 wrote: post #209
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…

> 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).

The phrase you’re looking for is “anatomically modern human”, which has been around for 200,000 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern_human

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#212

Post by greazy »

sinenomine wrote: post #176
freeboon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could gather that you disagreed with GP, but I don't see a salient point in your response? You are ostensibly challenging GP on the idea that a homo sapien baby from 200,000 years ago would have been capable of modern mental feats if raised in the present day. > This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective. Nice, seems like you have something meaningful to add. > At some point in our past, we were something mu…

If you think you are equipped to discuss the topic of evolution of general intelligence in homo, and you haven't read about GWAS and EDU PGS, then at this point you are either a naive layman, or a convinced discourse commando. Because it is really hard and hopeless endeavor to make an objective case that the current human populations have similar PGS scores on key mental traits and diseases compared to 200k years ago…

The myth that humans remain unchanged for 200k years is forever parroted as truth.

What is the origin of this silly myth? Its come from either anatomical similarity of fossils to modern day human or a comparison to modern (5k ago) humans being conflated with 200k humans

> convinced discourse commando.

What is a convinced discourse commando?

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#213

Post by 21asdffdsa12 »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #48
21asdffdsa12 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its complicated. It depends. A human being has the potential for intelligence. For that to get realized, you need circumstances, you need culture aka "societal" software and the resources to suspend the grind of work in formative years and allow for the speed-running of the process of knowledge preloading before the brain gets stable. The parents then must support this endeavor under sacrifices. There is also a ton o…

> A human being has the potential for intelligence. Were we "human" 200.000 years ago the way we are now? Was the required brain and vocal hardware present?

A human is more then the hardware. A human is hardware with cultural software. A human is decorated with parental education. A human is decorated with local cultural influences. A human inherits his economic circumstances and behavior.

A modern human is a complex artifact and can not be produced everywhere. The ability to cooperate, form institutions and build complex tools may be severely restricted even today. Of course its also restricted in the past.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#214

Post by 21asdffdsa12 »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #48
21asdffdsa12 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its complicated. It depends. A human being has the potential for intelligence. For that to get realized, you need circumstances, you need culture aka "societal" software and the resources to suspend the grind of work in formative years and allow for the speed-running of the process of knowledge preloading before the brain gets stable. The parents then must support this endeavor under sacrifices. There is also a ton o…

> A human being has the potential for intelligence. Were we "human" 200.000 years ago the way we are now? Was the required brain and vocal hardware present?

A human is more then the hardware.

A human is hardware with cultural software.

A human is decorated with parental education.

A human is decorated with local cultural influences.

A human inherits his economic circumstances and behavior.

A modern human is a complex artifact and can not be produced everywhere. The ability to cooperate, form institutions and build complex tools may be severely restricted even today. Of course its also restricted in the past.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#216

Post by cess11 »

stevenhuang wrote: post #146
cess11 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you actually have a way to fully, without reductions, simulate matter, that's probably a Nobel prize coming your way. The common scientific understanding is that this is not possible, at least not without extreme amounts of energy and time. The dimensionality, or complexity if you'd prefer, of your logic gates is quite different from the cosmos. You might not agree but in my parlance a linear and a fractal curve a…

We may not need to go down that level. For the qualities we care about, it may turn out to be the case we don't need to simulate matter perfectly. We may not need to concern ourselves with the fractal complexity of reality if we identify the right higher level abstractions with which to operate on. This phenomenon is known as causal emergence. > That is, a macroscale description of a system (a map) can be more inform…

Who are "we", and why would I care about them here?

There are situations where approximations are good enough for simulations, sure, but that's not the subject here.

I reject the idea that chatbots have feelings or intellect because they output text that is similar to what a human might write in some hypothetical situation or other. To the extent that they can have those properties, it is to the same extent as Clark Kent can, if one were to accept such a conflatory and confused discourse.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#217

Post by sharemywin »

gtowey wrote: post #166
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #24

Earlier 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.

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.

People assume training on past data means no novelty, but novelty comes from recombination. No one has written your exact function, with your exact inputs, constraints, and edge cases, yet an LLM can generate a working version from a prompt. That’s new output. The real limitation isn’t novelty, it’s grounding.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#218

Post by zug_zug »

nomel wrote: post #168
zug_zug wrote: post #17

I'm sorry what even is this? Giving $10k rewards for significant advancements toward "AGI"? What does "making a framework" even mean, it feels like a nothing post. When I think of what real AGI would be I think: - Passes the turing test - Writes a New York Times Bestseller without revealing it was written by AI - Writes journal articles that pass peer review - Wins a Nobel Prize - Writes a successful comedy routine -…

Why does your definition of "AGI" have to exclude nearly all humans? Wouldn't it still be "AGI" if it was as smart as the average human? Since when did AGI stop representing the words that make term? Artificial (man made) General (not specific) Intelligence. Is a human not "GI"!?

Well it's my feeling that I could do most of those things if I was given infinite time, and for all intents and purposes an AI isn't limited to human time since it can be run in 1,000x parallelism 24/7.

Like for writing a best-seller, these AIs have so many advantages in that they've read every notable work ever, so if they can't craft something impressive and creative after all that then it's really indicative that they are actually quite below human on the creativity/writing side but just masking it on the massive-data-side.

Or put another way -- it's not really AGI until there is a model can learn at human speeds, no amount of being pre-trained on specific problem sets (e.g. human emotions, coding, math theorems, etc) will close that gap.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#219

Post by snowwrestler »

fluoridation wrote: post #143
snowwrestler wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a human cares about the work, they can often outperform an LLM because they will keep at it until the work meets their standard of quality. Whereas the LLM will guess and then wait to be corrected. As a recent tweet I saw said: it’s amazing how fast the software bottleneck went from writing code, to reviewing code. I think we’ll need to split the concept of intelligence into the capacity to accomplish a task and t…

>I think we’ll need to split the concept of intelligence into the capacity to accomplish a task and the capacity to conceive and prompt a task. If the former is called “intelligence” then LLMs are intelligent. Huh? No. "The capacity to accomplish a task" is not intelligence. By that definition, a washing machine is intelligent.

Capacity is not binary. A washing machine can accomplish one task, so it has low capacity. An LLM can accomplish many tasks, so it has higher capacity.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#220

Post by IAmGraydon »

faangguyindia wrote: post #202
IAmGraydon wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is literally the first time I've heard this. What is your source? I can type the exact same query three times and though the general meaning may be the same, the actual output is unique every single time. How do you explain this if it's cached?
Post reply on HN