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

Self-driving as a case study for AGI

karpathy.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 199 posts

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#61

Post by krisoft »

skybrian wrote: post #30
CuriouslyC wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like to shit on the Turing test, but if you step back from the subjective judgement angle, and instead imagine that the person performing the Turing test is a scientist trying to collect evidence that the agent that it is communicating with is _NOT_ intelligent/human, it is actually still very relevant. Tools like statistical analysis of output and responses to jailbreak prompts and recursive/self referential…

The actual Turing Test is a party game like Werewolf. If the humans are skilled then they should be able to authenticate by picking a subject that the AI can’t compete on. This would be a very difficult game to build a computer opponent for and nobody really tries.

> picking a subject that the AI can’t compete on

Isn’t that the point? If there are no more such subjects then the AI reached humans level cognition.

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#62

Post by 3asdf123 »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #57
3asdf123 wrote: post #31

I now come to realize that if you don't want to drive it's better to have public transport. For the real fun part of owning a personal vehicle: sport car, road-trip... I doubt you would want a robot to take over.

I don't really like driving per se, but public transport, regardless of its sophistication (for example, as seen in Tokyo), has its challenges, particularly when it comes to grocery shopping. Transporting a large quantity of goods can be impractical, if not impossible, without a car. Even carrying a moderate amount can be exhausting due to the 'last 100 meter' issue, which persists even if one lives close to a metro…

I see, but then you don't need large quantity shopping at all when the supermarket is just a 5 minute walk away. I live in Tokyo, usually buy at most 3-4 days of food with a 30 minutes detour when I get off the station from work.

From what I've seen, the main reason why people want a car here seems to be wanting to travel with small children. Moving within Tokyo with car is not very convenient.

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#63

Post by krisoft »

jpnc wrote: post #59
fragmede wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to have to spell it out for me. I asked ChatGPT 4 about a random song and it gave me a decent description. https://chat.openai.com/share/71d438d7-d1f5-4f0f-9b63-8b5dd6...

Giving a description of a song is not the same as saying what you think about it.

So? Do you think we can’t make an LLM which picks a favourite song and writes about it with the gusto a person does? What is this example supposed to illustrate?

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#64

Post by dagw »

Hendrikto wrote: post #49
ycdxvjp wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like people can generalize either. There are lots of famous drivers who ended up dead while driving.

But in most cases they intentionally pushed the limits. It‘s not as if they suddenly misidentified a firetruck and drove straight into it.

t‘s not as if they suddenly misidentified a firetruck and drove straight into it.

No, instead their 'sensors' got distracted by some other irrelevant input so they didn't noticed it in time and drove straight into it. End result is pretty much the same.

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#65

Post by ben_w »

Radim wrote: post #55
ActorNightly wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not really about "get rich", its about giving people the ability to bypass the middleman for pretty much anything that they rely on.

The "middleman" being other people, i.e. themselves from another's perspective. "These other people are useless, let's bypass them. But not me! I simply gain the ability to get anything I want." The lack of second-order thinking is hilarious.

This is why UBI gets discussed so often at the same time as AGI/ASI.

If we're all redundant, how do we live? On a pension that starts at ${debatable from conception to adulthood}. Who provides the production on which the pension is spent? The AI.

Even assuming UBI is great (small scale tests say so, but have necessary limits so we can't be sure), there's going to be a huge mess with most attempts to roll out such a huge change.

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#66

Post by jillesvangurp »

YZF wrote: post #4

I think what Andrej is describing is more "automation" than AGI. His discussion of self-driving is more analogous to robots building cars in a Tesla factory displacing workers than anything AGI. We've already had "self driving" trains where we got rid of the human train driver. Nothing "AGI" about that. The evolution of getting cars to self drive not necessarily making the entity controlling the car more human-like i…

It's a meaningless distinction. You basically get sucked into a "what has AI ever done for us?" style debate analogous to Monty Python's Life of Brian. It's impossible to resolve. But the irony of course is the huge and growing list of things it is actually doing quite nicely.

We'll have decently smart AIs before we nail down what that G actually means, should mean, absolutely cannot mean, etc. Which is usually what these threads on HN devolve into. Andrej Karpathy is basically side stepping that debate and using self driving as a case study for two simple reasons: 1) we're already doing it (which is getting hard to deny or nitpick about) and 2) it requires a certain level of understanding of things around us that goes beyond traditional automation.

You are dismissing self driving as mere "automation". But that of course applies to just about everything we do with computers. Driving is sufficiently hard that it seems to require the best minds many years to get there and we're basically getting people like Andreij Karpathy and his colleagues from Google, Waymo, Microsoft, Tesla, etc. bootstrapping a whole new field of AI as a side effect. The whole reason we're even talking about AGI is those people. The things you list, most people cannot do either. Well over 99% of the people I meet are completely useless for any of those things. But I wouldn't call them stupid for that reason.

Some people even go as far to say that we won't nail self driving without an AGI. But then since we already have some self driving cars that are definitely not that intelligent yet, they are probably wrong. For varying definitions of the G in AGI.

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#67

Post by hiAndrewQuinn »

ben_w wrote: post #65
Radim wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "middleman" being other people, i.e. themselves from another's perspective. "These other people are useless, let's bypass them. But not me! I simply gain the ability to get anything I want." The lack of second-order thinking is hilarious.

This is why UBI gets discussed so often at the same time as AGI/ASI. If we're all redundant, how do we live? On a pension that starts at ${debatable from conception to adulthood}. Who provides the production on which the pension is spent? The AI. Even assuming UBI is great (small scale tests say so, but have necessary limits so we can't be sure), there's going to be a huge mess with most attempts to roll out such a h…

Assuming AGI doesn't kill us all, I would imagine the argument for UBI will become much easier to defend once it causes 100x, 1000x, 10000x etc growth in the economy. Our job is mostly to hang on until one of those two outcomes occurs.

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#68

Post by yladiz »

krisoft wrote: post #63
jpnc wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving a description of a song is not the same as saying what you think about it.

So? Do you think we can’t make an LLM which picks a favourite song and writes about it with the gusto a person does? What is this example supposed to illustrate?

Maybe, but 1. the point isn’t to describe, but to explain an abstract and potentially novel idea (thought) on the song, and 2. we can’t train this kind of thing in a generic way right now.

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#69

Post by maaaaattttt »

Lately, whilst playing Zelda TotK (works for BotW as well), I was thinking that a good test to see if you have AGI would be letting it solve all the shrines. They require real world knowledge, sometimes rather "deep" logic and the ability to use previously unseen capabilities. Of course the AGI should not be able to have a million tries at it, RL style. Just use the "shrine test" as a regular test set. I believe one would have a pretty nice virtual proxy for a general intelligence test.

From the article, I find it strange that AGI often de facto implies "super intelligence". It should be 2 distinct concepts. I find that GPT-4 is close to a general intelligence, but far from a super intelligence. Succeeding at just general intelligence would be amazing, but I don't believe it means super intelligence is just a step away.

This also brings me to a point I don't see discussed a lot which is simulation (NOT in "we live in a simulation" sense). Let's say I have AGI, it passes the above mentioned shrine test, or any other accepted test. Now I'd like to tell it "find a way to travel faster than light" for example. The AGI would first be limited by our current knowledge, but could potentially find a new way. In order to find a new way it would probably need to conduct experiments and adjust its knowledge based on these experiments. If the AGI cannot run on a good enough simulation, then what it can discover will be rather limited, at least time-wise most likely quality wise. I'm thinking this falls back to Wolfram's computational irreducibility. Even if we managed a super general intelligence, it will be limited by physics of the world we live in sooner rather than later.

Re: Self-driving as a case study for AGI

#70

Post by motoxpro »

dave4420 wrote: post #56
wodenokoto wrote: post #50

> but automate it we did (ahead of many other sectors of the economy), and society has noticed and is responding to it I was quite surprised by this sentence, as I thought we didn't have self driving cars. Have I been sleeping under a rock?

We have self driving cars in an extremely limited number of cities (just one or two) and you can’t buy them, you can only use them like an Uber. He’s overselling how mature the technology is.

How is he over selling it when he says explicitly that waymo exists in two cities? It's solved in that it works and they have to scale horizonatally.
Post reply on HN