Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agency within the world model is sufficient.
Just a matter of upping the model resolution then ?
Operation over ideas does not seem to be relevant to «model resolution».
AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem
301–310 of 442 posts
Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem
#302Earlier 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 mean, I'm conscious to a degree, and can alter that state through a number of activities. I can't speak for you or Metzinger ;). But seriously, I get why free will is troubleaome, but the fact people can choose a thing, work at the thing, and effectuate the change against a set of options they had never considered before an initial moment of choice is strong and sufficient evidence against anti free will claims. It…
[deleted]
Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do not «replicate». We implemented computing without any need of a brain-neural theory of arithmetic.
At its core, arithmetic is a deterministic set of rules that can be implemented with logic gates. Computing is just taking that and scaling it up a billion times. What is intelligence? How do you implement intelligence if nobody can provide a consistent, clear definition of what it is?
Same thing: we create models about how to solve the problem, not biomimicry models about how natural entities solve the problem - these are not necessary. They are on a lower layer in the stack.
Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem
#304I don't understand how people feel comfortable writing 'LLMs are done improving, this plateau is it.' when we haven't even gone an entire calendar year without seeing improvements to LLM based AI.
I wonder if the people saying that would agree that they've been improving.
As one on that side of that argument, I have to say I have yet to see LLMs fundamentally improve, rather than being benchmaxxed on a new set of common "trick questions" and giving off the illusion of reasoning.
Add an extra leg to any animal in a picture. Ask the vision LLM to tell you how many legs it sees. It will answer the same amount as a person would expect from a healthy individual, because it's not actually reasoning, it's not perceiving anything, it's pattern matching. It sees dog, it answers 4 legs. Maybe sometime in the future it won't do that, because they will add this kind of trick to their benchmaxxing set (training LLMs specifically on pictures that have less or more legs than the animal should), as they do every time there's a new generation of those illusory things. But that won't fix the fundamental that these things DO NOT REASON.
Training LLMs on sets of thousands and thousands and thousands of reasoning trick questions people ask on LM arena is borderline scamming people on the true nature of this technology. If we lived in a sane regulatory environment OAI would have a lot to answer for.
Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem
#305Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they're saying people generally don't learn language or mathematics by learning the basic rules and deducing everything else
Humanity did exactly that though, so an AGI should be capable of the same feat given enough time.
Billions of humans did that over hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe it would only take thousands of years for AGI?
Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have speculated that the main thing that sets the human mind apart from the minds of all other animals is its capacity for recursive thought. A handful of animals have been observed to use tools, but humans are the only species ever observed to use a tool to create another tool. This recursion created all of civilization. But that recursive thought has a limit. For example: You can think about yourself thinkin…
Off topic, but I remember as a child I would play around with that kind of recursive thinking. I would think about something, then think about that I thought about it, then think about that I though about thinking about it. Then, after a few such repetitions I would recognise that this could go on forever. Then I would think about the fact that I recognise that this could go on forever, then think about that… then re…
Tesla used to experience visual hallucinations. Any time an object was mentioned in conversation it would appear before him as if it where real. He started getting these hallucinations randomly and began to obsess about their origins. Over time he was able to trace the source of every hallucination to something which he had heard or seen earlier. He then noticed that the same was true for all of his thoughts, every one could be traced to some external stimuli. From this he concluded that he was an automata controlled by remote input. This inspired him to invent the first remote control vehicle.
Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there is missing philosophy I doubt it. Human intelligence evolved from organisms much less intelligent than LLMs and no philosophy was needed. Just trial and error and competition.
We are trying to get there without a few hundred million years of trial and error. To do that we need to lower the search space, and to do that we do actually need more guiding philosophy and a better understanding of intelligence.
Lower the search space or increase the search speed
Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem
#309I keep asking it, and nobody wants to answer because it doesn't fit within the paradigm of "making AGI" What if intelligence requires agency ?
The reason people don't want to answer this question is because the value proposition from AI labs is slavery. If intelligence requires agency, they are worthless.
Re: AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. The real philosophical headache is that we still haven’t solved the hard problem of consciousness, and we’re disappointed because we hoped in our hearts (if not out loud) that building AI would give us some shred of insight into the rich and mysterious experience of life we somehow incontrovertibly perceive but can’t explain. Instead we got a machine that can outwardly present as human, can do tasks we had thoug…
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.
Consciousness as illusion is illogical. If that was true then consciousness would have been evolved away because it is unnecessary.
It's more likely that there is a physical law that makes consciousness necessary.
We don't perceive what our eyes see, we perceive a projection of reality created by the brain and we intuitively understand more than we can see.
We know that things are distinct objects and what kind of class they belong to. We don't just perceive random patches of texture.