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

AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem

vincirufus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 442 posts

Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem

#241

Post by idiotsecant »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #184
galangalalgol wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Metzinger nailed it, we aren't conscious at all. We confuse the map for the territory in thinking the model we build to predict our other models is us. We are a collection of models a few of which create the illusion of consciousness. Someone is going to connect a handful of already existing models in a way that gives an AI the same illusion sooner rather than later. That will be an interesting day.

I don't see how your explanation leads to consciousness not being a thing. Consciousness is whatever process/mechanisms there are that as a whole produce our subjective experience and all its sensations, including but not limited to touch, vision, smell, taste, pain, etc.

any old model can have inputs much more varied than just the senses we are limited to. That doesn't mean they're conscious.

Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem

#242

Post by ksec »

andy99 wrote: post #19

If you believe the bitter lesson, all the handwavy "engineering" is better done with more data. Someone likely would have written the same thing as this 8 years ago about what it would take to get current LLM performance. So I don't buy the engineering angle, I also don't think LLMs will scale up to AGI as imagined by Asimov or any of the usual sci-fi tropes. There is something more fundamental missing, as in missing…

> There is something more fundamental missing

I am thinking we need a foundation, something that is concrete and explicit and doesn't do hallucination. But has very limited knowledge outside of absolute Maths and basic physics.

Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem

#243

Post by idiotsecant »

bsenftner wrote: post #134
dragonwriter wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AGI, by definition, in its name Artificial General Intelligence implies / directly states that this type of AI is not some dumb AI that requires training for all its knowledge, a general intelligence merely needs to be taught how to count, the basic rules of logic, and the basic rules of a single human language. From those basics all derivable logical human sciences will be rediscovered by that AGI That's not how n…

Are you sure? Do you require dozens, to hundreds, to thousands of examples before you understand a concept? I expect no. That is because you have comprehension that can generalize a situation to basic concepts which you apply to other situations without effort. You comprehend. AI cannot do that: get the idea from a few, under a half dozen examples if necessary. Often a human needs 1-3 examples before they can general…

You spend every waking minute for 20 years or so accumulating training data. You don't learn addition and then independently discover vector calculus.

Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem

#244

Post by smohare »

danenania wrote: post #206
crystal_revenge wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The magical thinking around LLMs is getting bizarre now. LLMs are not “intelligent” in any meaningful biological sense. Watch a spider modify its web to adapt to changing conditions and you’ll realize just how far we have to go. LLMs sometimes echo our own reasoning back at us in a way that sounds intelligent and is often useful, but don’t mistake this for “intelligence”

The idea that biological intelligence is impossible to replicate by other means would seem to imply that there’s something magical about biology.

[dead]

Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem

#245

Post by DrewADesign »

slashdave wrote: post #214
DrewADesign wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t contradict what they said. We may one day design a biological computing system that is capable of it. We don’t entirely understand how neurons work; it’s reasonable to posit that the differences that many AGI boosters assert don’t matter do matter— just not in ways we’ve discovered yet.

We understand how neurons work to quite a bit of detail.

The Allen Institute doesn’t seem to think so. We don’t even know how the brain of a roundworm ticks and it’s only got 302 neurons— all of which are mapped, along with their connections.

Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem

#246

Post by gls2ro »

danenania wrote: post #230
charcircuit wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There very well could be something magical about it.

It’s fine to think that—many clearly do. But it would be more honest and productive imo if people would just say outright when they don’t think AGI is possible (or that AI can never be “real intelligence”) for religious reasons, rather than pretending there’s a rational basis.

AGI is not possible because we dont yet have a clear and commonly agreed definition of intelligence and more importantly we dont have a definition for consciousness nor we can define clearly (if there is) the link between those two.

until we got that AGI is just a magic word.

When we will have those two clear definitions that means we understood them and then we can work toward AGI.

Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem

#247

Post by bee_rider »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #76
bee_rider wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post I was responding to had > On the contrary, we have one working example of general intelligence (humans) I think some animals probably have what most people would informally call general intelligence, but maybe there’s some technical definition that makes me wrong.

Their point is not in any way weakened if you read "one working example" as "at least one working example".

Oh, good point, I hadn’t noticed the alternative reading. That makes sense, then.

Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem

#248

Post by [deleted] »

danenania wrote: post #230
charcircuit wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There very well could be something magical about it.

It’s fine to think that—many clearly do. But it would be more honest and productive imo if people would just say outright when they don’t think AGI is possible (or that AI can never be “real intelligence”) for religious reasons, rather than pretending there’s a rational basis.

[deleted]

Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem

#249

Post by robviren »

I have been thinking this as well. I desperately wish to develop a method that gives the models latent thinking that actually has temporal significance. The models now are so linear and have to scale on just one pass. A recurring model where the dynamics occur over multiple passes should hold much more complexity. Have worked on a few concepts in that area that are panning out.

Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem

#250

Post by smohare »

joe_the_user wrote: post #235
hnuser123456 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more fundamental than science, there is missing philosophy, both in us regarding these systems, and in the systems themselves. An AGI implemented by an LLM needs to, at the minimum, be able to self-learn by updating its weights, self-finetune, otherwise it quickly hits a wall between its baked-in weights and finite context window. What is the optimal "attention" mechanism for choosing what to self-finetune with,…

Well, Original 80s AI was based on mathematical logic. And while that might not encompass all philosophy, it certainly was a product of philosophy broadly speaking - some analytical philosophers could endorse. But it definitely failed and failed because it could process uncertainty (imo). I think also if you closely, classical philosophy wasn't particularly amenable to uncertainty either. If anything, I would say tha…

[dead]
Post reply on HN