31–40 of 244 posts
“ We note however that there is no single definition of AGI that is broadly accepted, and we discuss other definitions in the conclusion section.” We know it can do a lot of cool stuff, but without a pinned down definition the headline here is useless.
Can we agree that an "early (yet still incomplete) version of AGI" isn't AGI?
To me it's clear that they think it's AGI, and that they think AGI is such a loaded concept that it's not worth "announcing" it. Beliefs are changing so fast right now. The term "AGI skeptic" will soon (if not already) mean "I don't trust AGIs in positions of authority or power" rather than "I don't think the technology is capable of matching our level of cognition."
ChatGPT and its relatives are very very impressive on first impressions, but I've been using ChatGPT-3 and now 4 heavily every day since they became available to individuals and once you start using them this much it becomes very clear how NOT intelligent they are. It really just seems like extremely impressive statistical inference after this much use and finding so many failure modes. But it is still impressive how…
Our of curiosity, what is GPT-4 getting wrong so often? It’s prettily wild to my own , admittedly easily impressed, mind.
> Which is heavier, a pound of marbles or two pounds of corn?
Both weigh the same amount, which is a total of two pounds. This might seem counterintuitive at first, but it's important to remember that the pound is a unit of weight or mass, and it always refers to the same amount regardless of what is being weighed. In this case, one pound of marbles plus two pounds of corn equals a total of three pounds, whereas two pounds of corn plus one pound of marbles also equals a total of three pounds. Therefore, both weigh the same amount of two pounds.
ChatGPT and its relatives are very very impressive on first impressions, but I've been using ChatGPT-3 and now 4 heavily every day since they became available to individuals and once you start using them this much it becomes very clear how NOT intelligent they are. It really just seems like extremely impressive statistical inference after this much use and finding so many failure modes. But it is still impressive how…
> Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system. But it's just statistics, a fancy text predictor, a Markov-chain. Surely these scientists that work in the field of AI and are intimately familiar with how this stuff works aren't so stupid as to think emergent behavior pote…
Why is that a stupid thought? What is so preposterous about "just statistics" -- with billions of nodes, and extensively trained, producing intelligent behavior? The implicit assumption is that human brains are doing something else, or in addition.
I think that what's wrong with this view -- that there is a difference between AGI and human intelligence -- is that it conflates what your brain is doing, with what you think your brain is doing. Brains and neural nets have been trained to recognize spoken words. I'm not even talking about understanding, just producing the text corresponding to speech. We know how neural nets do this translation. Do we understand how brains do it? (I don't know, but I don't think so.) Can you explain what your brain is doing when you do speech-to-text? I doubt it.
Chess: An Alpha Zero style AI (neural net trained by playing itself) is a very good player. How do you play chess? You can probably explain how you make a move more successfully than you can explain how you translate speech to text. But how correct is your explanation? An explanation may well be your conscious mind inventing an explanation for what your unconscious mind has done.
In other words: When people compare AI to human intelligence, I think they are often comparing to intelligence plus consciousness, not even realizing the error.
> Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system. But it's just statistics, a fancy text predictor, a Markov-chain. Surely these scientists that work in the field of AI and are intimately familiar with how this stuff works aren't so stupid as to think emergent behavior pote…
It's not a Markov Chain or a fancy text predictor. It's a ~200 layer neural network that models a vast hierarchy of concepts through language. It has emergent properties that we don't yet understand.
ChatGPT and its relatives are very very impressive on first impressions, but I've been using ChatGPT-3 and now 4 heavily every day since they became available to individuals and once you start using them this much it becomes very clear how NOT intelligent they are. It really just seems like extremely impressive statistical inference after this much use and finding so many failure modes. But it is still impressive how…
That is pretty much the case, but I'm always taken back by how many people believe intelligence = directly replicating human thought. I thought the common consensus was instead that (artificial) intelligence was instead about mimicking enough of the process to provide the outcome. Largely because it's impossible to replicate something when we don't entirely know how it works. Major discoveries of basic aspects of the…
On the contrary. These are mostly orthogonal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our of curiosity, what is GPT-4 getting wrong so often? It’s prettily wild to my own , admittedly easily impressed, mind.
Any variant of a "surprising" logic puzzle forces it to latch onto the surprising answer. Like whether two pounds of iron weighs more than one pound of feathers. Or any objects. It "expects" the twist, and always answers accordingly. It does so even if you change up the objects to be less tricky. > Which is heavier, a pound of marbles or two pounds of corn? Both weigh the same amount, which is a total of two pounds.…
> Two pounds of corn is heavier than a pound of marbles. A pound is a unit of weight, and two pounds is twice as heavy as one pound, regardless of the material being weighed.
ChatGPT and its relatives are very very impressive on first impressions, but I've been using ChatGPT-3 and now 4 heavily every day since they became available to individuals and once you start using them this much it becomes very clear how NOT intelligent they are. It really just seems like extremely impressive statistical inference after this much use and finding so many failure modes. But it is still impressive how…
It’s almost as if someone who can piece together words well enough they can make people think they are smarter than they actually are.
> Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4’s capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system. I don't know why, but my brain refuses to accept GPT-4 as something close to AGI. Maybe I am wrong. It is hard to believe that our brain is just a bunch of attention layers and neural nets.
Well it’s not quite that simple. Brains use spiking neural networks, not the kind used typically in artificial neural networks like those used by LLMs. The “weights” can be changed over time, new connections and even new neurons formed. And the number of connections (“weights”) is about 500-1000x more in our brain than GPT-3. The connection topography is a lot different. But ultimately, our brains are still just made…