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

Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 388 posts

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#331

Post by bick_nyers »

PheonixPharts wrote: post #41

As someone who has worked in the field of AI/ML for quite awhile now, the problem with current AGI predictions is ML hasn't done anything new since the 80s (or arguably earlier). At the end of the day all ML is using gradient descent to do some sort of non-linear projection of the data on to a latent space, then doing some relatively simple math in this latent space to perform some task. Personally I think the limits…

Do you not believe that intelligence is just nonlinear optimization all the way down?

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#332

Post by andrepd »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #299
andrepd wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are lots of concepts that are based in math but can be reasoned about non-mathematically. Can you be more specific? I literally don't know what you mean. What can you say about quantum mechanics that is not mathematical or logical in nature? Barring metaphysical issues of interpretation, which I assume is not what you mean.

Rarely do I think responding with chatGPT is appropriate, but this is one of those times. * Of course! When discussing concepts from quantum mechanics without getting into the mathematical details, we can focus on the general ideas and principles that underlie the theory. Here are some key concepts in quantum mechanics that can be explained in a non-mathematical way: 1. Superposition: In quantum mechanics, particles…

Mate, not only is every single one of those concepts a mathematical one, the explanations it gives are misleading or incorrect! E.g. the typical pop-sci misleading lines of "it's a wave and a particle at the same time" (it isn't both, it's neither) or "it's in two states at the same time, like a coin which is heads and tails" (no it's not, the point is precisely that it doesn't behave according to classical probabilities).

Claiming these concepts are not mathalematical is like saying addition is not mathematics because you can explain it with words or diagrams to a child!

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#333

Post by pixl97 »

chimprich wrote: post #238
dr_dshiv wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s terrible and math and logic, but ChatGPT is amazing at concepts—that’s why it is so powerful. It doesn’t work programmatically—that’s why it fails at logic. But it can reason inductively very very well. Do you have an example besides logic/math where it doesn’t understand simple concepts?

> Do you have an example besides logic/math where it doesn’t understand simple concepts? All the time. It often fails to understand simple concepts. It doesn't really seem to understand anything. For example, try to get it to write some code for a program in a moderately obscure programming language. It's terrible: it will confidently produce stuff, but make errors all over the place. It's unable to understand that i…

>, try to get it to write some code for a program in a moderately obscure programming language. It's terrible: it will confidently produce stuff, but make errors all over the place.

Is that really any different than asking me to attempt to program in a moderately obscure programming language without a runtime to test my code on? I wouldn't be able to figure out what I don't know without a feedback loop incorporating data.

>If you point out problems it'll happily try again and repeat the same errors over and over again.

And quite often if you incorporate the correct documentation, it will stop repeating the errors and give a correct answer.

It's not a continuous learning model either. It has small token windows where it begins forgetting things. So yea, it has limits far below most humans, but far beyond any we've seen in the past.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#334

Post by AnimalMuppet »

pixl97 wrote: post #333
chimprich wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have an example besides logic/math where it doesn’t understand simple concepts? All the time. It often fails to understand simple concepts. It doesn't really seem to understand anything. For example, try to get it to write some code for a program in a moderately obscure programming language. It's terrible: it will confidently produce stuff, but make errors all over the place. It's unable to understand that i…

>, try to get it to write some code for a program in a moderately obscure programming language. It's terrible: it will confidently produce stuff, but make errors all over the place. Is that really any different than asking me to attempt to program in a moderately obscure programming language without a runtime to test my code on? I wouldn't be able to figure out what I don't know without a feedback loop incorporating…

How about this? Flip it into training mode, feed it the language manual for an obscure language, then ask it to write a program in that language? That's a test that many of us here have passed...

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#335

Post by theGnuMe »

ogogmad wrote: post #247
VHRanger wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can even do it in a linear regression. Just add enough polynomial terms (x^a) and interaction terms (x1 * x2). The end model looks something like: y = b + x1 + x1^2 + x1^3 + ... + x1 * x2 + (x1 * x2)^2 + ... + x2 + x2^2 + ... By that point you're making a Taylor approximation of the latent function through linear space, which is also a universal approximator. So the commenter above is wrong -- neural networks are…

That would suggest that 1-Hidden-Layer neural nets would work fine, since they are also universal function approximators. But no -- when people talk about "deep learning", the word "deep" refers to having lots of hidden layers. I'm not an expert, but the motivation seems more like this: - Linear regression and SVM sometimes work. But they apply to very few problems. - We can fit those models using gradient descent. A…

1-layer nets are equivalent in theory and universal approximators, they are just hard to train.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#336

Post by hammyhavoc »

blagie wrote: post #327
hammyhavoc wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have no idea what emotions, motivations, behaviors, or goals AIs have, will have, or if they'll have something as of yet unconvinced that's not emotions or motivations, but just alien. AIs don't have emotions, motivations or goals. They don't pretend, because pretending implies intent, they don't have intent. They do what they're created to do. Humans are already brainwashed consumers. Welcome to marketing/adver…

The level of confidence both sides give here is not warranted. We have no idea about what internal structures emerged within LLMs. We only know outer behavior. From a humanist / secular perspective, humans evolved to make babies. Emotions are an emergent behavior to maximize the number of babies made, and their survival. Nothing less, and nothing more. What analogues emerge when we train machines not to survive but t…

Why would anything emerge?

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#337

Post by loandbehold »

Planktonne wrote: post #329
loandbehold wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. If you play around with ChatGPT4 enough you can see it understands the concept. That is, it's able to model it and draw inferences from the model in a way that's impossible through just words and their relationships. "Sparks of AGI" paper gives some good examples, for instance where it's asked to balance a book, 9 eggs, a laptop, a bottle and a nail. I recently asked it to design a plan for a bathroom. It…

> These things are not possible with just words I don't think this is the case at all. Language is how we encode and communicate ideas/concepts/practicalities; with sufficient data, the links are extractable just from the text.

I don't see how two examples I gave are possible with just text. They require understanding spatial relationships between objects and their physical properties.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#338

Post by throwawayadvsec »

andrepd wrote: post #171
dr_dshiv wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A transformative aspect of human verbal intelligence involves dealing with concepts and their combinations intersection. ChatGPT does this very well. I think we can agree that ChatGPT provides intelligent completions for an astonishing range of human concepts? It seems appropriate to describe what ChatGPT understands and what it doesn’t understand through evals or assessments (in the same way that we can use assessme…

> ChatGPT does this very well Lol, this is precisely what chatgpt doesn't do well at all! It fails to understand simple concepts, logical inference, simple math, etc.

GPT is actually EXTREMELY good at math compared to an average human who is not using a calculator.

Ask a random person stuff like whats 465*42/12 and you'll get ridiculous answers, and LLM can use tools now.

I'd argue that it's actually superior to humans in that regard

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#340

Post by Aerbil313 »

zamnos wrote: post #206
TheDudeMan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we'll have full-blown AGI before fusion and before world-changing levels of quantum computing. Which is to say, we won't be around to see fusion and world-changing quantum :( But there's still time for robo-taxis!

The future is here, its just unevenly distributed. If you live in a specific collection of neighborhoods in San Francisco or Phoenix, robo taxis are already here.

Haha, I just read the other day on r/collapse that "Collapse (of the civilization) is already here, just not evenly distributed."
Post reply on HN