Live data from Hacker News

AGI is an engineering problem, not a model training problem

vincirufus.com

341–350 of 442 posts

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

#341

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,…

A system that self-updates its weights is so obvious the only question is who will be the first to get there?

Sure, it's obvious, but it's only one of the missing pieces required for brain-like AGI, and really upends the whole LLM-as-AI way of doing things.

Runtime incremental learning is still going to be based on prediction failure, but now it's no longer failure to predict the training set, but rather requires closing the loop and having (multi-modal) runtime "sensory" feedback - what were the real-world results of the action the AGI just predicted (generated)? This is no longer an auto-regressive model where you can just generate (act) by feeding the model's own output back in as input, but instead you now need to continually gather external feedback to feed back into your new incremental learning algorithm.

For a multi-modal model the feedback would have to include image/video/audio data as well as text, but even if initial implementations of incremental learning systems restricted themselves to text it still turns the whole LLM-based way of interacting with the model on it's head - the model generates text-based actions to throw out into the world, and you now need to gather the text-based future feedback to those actions. With chat the feedback is more immediate, but with something like software development far more nebulous - the model makes a code edit, and the feedback only comes later when compiling, running, debugging, etc, or maybe when trying to refactor or extend the architecture in the future. In corporate use the response to an AGI-generated e-mail or message might come in many delayed forms, with these then needing to be anticipated, captured, and fed back into the model.

Once you've replaced the simple LLM prompt-response mode of interaction with one based on continual real-world feedback, and designed the new incremental (Bayesian?) learning algorithm to replace SGD, maybe the next question is what model is being updated, and where does this happen? It's not at all clear that the idea of a single shared (between all users) model will work when you have millions of model instances all simultaneously doing different things and receiving different feedback on different timescales... Maybe the incremental learning now needs to be applied to a user-specific model instance (perhaps with some attempt to later share & re-distribute whatever it has learnt), even if that is still cloud based.

So... a lot of very fundamental changes need to be made, just to support self-learning and self-updates, and we haven't even discussed all the other equally obvious differences between LLMs and a full cognitive architecture that would be needed to support more human-like AGI.

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

#342
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…

I agree with your comment and the article. LLMs should be part of the answer, but the core of the progress should probably dive back into neural networks in general. Language is how we communicate as well as with other senses, but right now we're stuck at LLMs that just seem to be blown out elizas trained with other actual humans work. I remember early on, training of simple neural networks was done with rules in their environment and they evolved behavior according to criteria set, like genetic algorithms. I think the current LLMs are getting a "filtered" view of the environment, and that filter behaves like the average IQ of netizens lol

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

#343
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof?

Well, you should show the proof that it is possible also, So it would be a draw. I really think it is not possible to get that from a machine. You can improve and do much fancier than now. But AGI would be something entirely different. It is a system that can do everything better than a human including creativity, which I believe it to be exclusively human as of now. It can combine, simulate and reason. But think out…

The burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim, especially an absolute existential claim like that. You have failed the burden of proof and of intellectual honesty. Over and out.

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

#344
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well general intelligence in humans already exists, whereas general intelligence doesn't yet exist in machines. How do we know when we have it? You can't even simply compare it to humans and ask "is it able to do the same things?" because your answer depends on what you define those things to be. Surely you wouldn't say that someone who can't remember names or navigate without GPS lacks general intelligence, so it's…

How do we know when a newborn has achieved general intelligence? We don't need a definition amenable to proof.

P.S. The response is just an evasion.

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

#345

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.

rationalism has become the new religion. Roko's basilisk is a ghost story and the quest for AGI is today's quest for the philosopher's stone. and people believe this shit because they can articulate a "rational basis"

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

#346
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would categorize sentient AGI as artificial consciousness[1], but I don't see an obvious reason AGI inherently must be conscious or sentient. (In terms of near-term economic value, non-sentient AGI seems like a more useful invention.) For me, AGI is an AI that I could assign an arbitrarily complex project, and given sufficient compute and permissions, it would succeed at the task as reliably as a competent C-suite…

"Consciousness" and "sentience" are terms mired in philosophical bullshit. We do not have an operational definition of either. We have no agreement on what either term really means, and we definitely don't have a test that could be administered to conclusively confirm or rule out "consciousness" or "sentience" in something inhuman. We don't even know for sure if all humans are conscious. What we really have is task s…

"Consciousness" seems pretty obvious. The ability to experience qualia. I do it, you do it, my dog does it. I suspect all mammals do it, and I suspect birds do too. There is no evidence any computer program does anything like it.

It's "intelligence" I can't define.

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

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't mention it, but LLMs and co don't have loops. Whereas a brain, even a simple one is nothing but loops. Brains don't halt, they keep spinning while new inputs come in and output whenever they feel like it. LLMs however do halt, you give them an input, it gets transformed across the layers, then gets output. While you say reinforcement learning isn't a good answer, I think its the only answer.

LLMs have loops. The output is fed back in for the next prediction cycle. How is that not the same thing?

Wish I had a great answer for you but I don't. It certainly allows for more thought-like LLMs with the reasoning type models. I guess the best answer is that the loop only happens at a single discrete place and doesn't carry any of the internal layer context across.

Another answer might be, how many comments did you read today and not reply too? Did you write a comment by putting down a word and then deciding what the next one should be? Or did you have a full thought in mind before you even began typing a reply?

So, how is it not the same thing? Because it isn't

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

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Consciousness" and "sentience" are terms mired in philosophical bullshit. We do not have an operational definition of either. We have no agreement on what either term really means, and we definitely don't have a test that could be administered to conclusively confirm or rule out "consciousness" or "sentience" in something inhuman. We don't even know for sure if all humans are conscious. What we really have is task s…

"Consciousness" seems pretty obvious. The ability to experience qualia. I do it, you do it, my dog does it. I suspect all mammals do it, and I suspect birds do too. There is no evidence any computer program does anything like it. It's "intelligence" I can't define.

Oh, so simple. Go measure it then.

The definition of "featherless biped" might have more practical merit, because you can at least check for feathers and count limbs touching the ground in a mostly reliable fashion.

We have no way to "check for qualia" at all. For all we know, an ECU in a year 2002 Toyota Hilux has it, but 10% of all humans don't.

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

#349

Am I the only one who feels that Claude Code is what they would have imagined basic AGI to be like 10 years ago? It can plan and take actions towards arbitrary goals in a wide variety of mostly text-based domains. It can maintain basic "memory" in text files. It's not smart enough to work on a long time horizon yet, it's not embodied, and it has big gaps in understanding. But this is basically what I would have expec…

No you are not the only one. I am continuously mystified by the discussion surrounding this. Clause is absolutely and unquestionably an artificial general intelligence. But what people mean by “AGI” is a constantly shifting, never defined goalpost moving at sonic speed.

What we envisioned with AGI is something like self directed learning, I think. Not just a better search engine.

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

#350
AGI is a science problem.

We've lucked into these amazing abilities by just scaling.

But we don't really understand how they work.

And they are obviously missing a piece, some self-reflection, or continuous-loop operation perhaps, which we again don't understand.

Perhaps we'll do all this engineering and luck the solution again, but I think probably not.

Post reply on HN