4 ms·

I will continue dismissing AGI until someone can tell me what GI is. I don't believe that it's just statistical inferences run in parallel (Machine Learning).

I will continue dismissing AGI until someone can tell me what GI is. I don't believe that it's just statistical inferences run in parallel (Machine Learning). If we don't know what GI is, then I don't know how we are supposed to replicate it. It's like if we wanted to produce power on Earth the same way as the Sun does, but without knowing that was fusion. So we were just trying to make things look like the Sun. Someone says "Look, I made a ball so hot you can't look at it, we must be close!" I believe we will have fusion eventually because it is a process that we deeply understand, it's just hard to do. I don't believe we are on a path to AGI right now because know one understands even a little bit of GI.

hutzlibu 5y ago
" I don't believe that it's just statistical inferences run in parallel" Why not? I also believe, there must be something more, but I cannot articulate it. But as disturbing as it sounds, most natural learning might be just this. Lots of statistics run in parallel.
- idontwantthis 5y ago
  That’s just my belief. I might get proven wrong, but I haven’t been so far.
- idontwantthis 5y ago
  And what about things people do that don’t make any statistical sense? Is it AGI if it picks up its underwear the first time you ask, or is it only AGI once it waits for you to get angry after the fifth time you ask?
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "And what about things people do that don’t make any statistical sense?" Like what? It is always individual statistics made up from partly faulty data. It is never objective, what mattered in a evolutionary sense, was that it works good enough. (like ants algorithms are not perfect, but get the job done most of the time. I watched ants a lot ...)
    - idontwantthis 5y ago
      So we are intelligent statistical engines but usually very bad at updating our priors. If you make a machine that can drive a car, but doesn’t like to because it’s father frequently had road rage, is that AGI? If you build that but then “fix” that behavior out of it then is it still AGI?
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        Consciousness is something, I cannot explain at all with statistics (or any other mechanism). True AGI by my definition would require consciousness, but as far as I know, there is also no general accepted definition of consciousness either.
        eru 5y ago
        That's the beauty of the Turing test: it avoids having to worry about consciousness. (Of course, passing the Turing test wouldn't be necessary for intelligence, at most it's sufficient. Otherwise, humans who lost the ability to produce language but are otherwise quite smart and capable would count as non-intelligent.)
Xcelerate 5y ago
> I will continue dismissing AGI until someone can tell me what GI is Here's a rather famous recommendation for a definition of general intelligence: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3329.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3329.pdf Very loosely paraphrasing their paper, general intelligence is the ability to adapt to novel situations and predict the future better than any other algorithm could do. Personally, I think of perfect AGI as this: given that our universe is capable of approximation to arbitrary precision using a universal Turing machine (and infinite time and memory), AGI is the best* computable approximation to Solomonoff induction. *"best" being some mathematical notion of optimality.
- idontwantthis 5y ago
  So are humans not GI then? We are terrible at predicting the future, in general. "Frustration" is the feeling of things not going how you thought they would or should.
- eru 5y ago
  > Very loosely paraphrasing their paper, general intelligence is the ability to adapt to novel situations and predict the future better than any other algorithm could do. The 'better than any other algorithm' part seems to make this into a pretty weird definition? By that standard only John von Neumann [0] was intelligent, because every other human wasn't as smart as him? I suspect any reasonable definition of intelligence has to work on a 'good enough' basis, not on optimality. The paper you linked is quite interesting, and I'll be reading it now. I suspect your summary was perhaps a bit too brisk, and their more careful longer definition survives this trivial objection? [0] Replace von Neumann with your favourite genius.
  - idontwantthis 5y ago
    Humans are terrible at pretty much everything except what they are specifically highly trained in. von Neuman was a genius, but he also actively promoted nuclear war. Does that mean he is or is not intelligent? Do you think in a world where von Neuman got to nuke the USSR in 1950, we would be happy we gave him the keys?
VladimirGolovin 5y ago
Here's a definition from Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter: Universal Intelligence: A Definition of Machine Intelligence https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329 https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329
ilaksh 5y ago
See M. Mitchell's Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans
simonh 5y ago
What do you mean by "dismiss AGI"? Do you dismiss the idea that we are currently on a developmental path to achieving AGI in the medium term (a lifetime or two) with current approaches, or do you dismiss the idea that AGI is possible at all? I would agree on the former, but that in no way implies the latter.

hutzlibu 5y ago

" I don't believe that it's just statistical inferences run in parallel" Why not? I also believe, there must be something more, but I cannot articulate it. But as disturbing as it sounds, most natural learning might be just this. Lots of statistics run in parallel.

idontwantthis 5y ago
That’s just my belief. I might get proven wrong, but I haven’t been so far.
idontwantthis 5y ago
And what about things people do that don’t make any statistical sense? Is it AGI if it picks up its underwear the first time you ask, or is it only AGI once it waits for you to get angry after the fifth time you ask?
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "And what about things people do that don’t make any statistical sense?" Like what? It is always individual statistics made up from partly faulty data. It is never objective, what mattered in a evolutionary sense, was that it works good enough. (like ants algorithms are not perfect, but get the job done most of the time. I watched ants a lot ...)
  - idontwantthis 5y ago
    So we are intelligent statistical engines but usually very bad at updating our priors. If you make a machine that can drive a car, but doesn’t like to because it’s father frequently had road rage, is that AGI? If you build that but then “fix” that behavior out of it then is it still AGI?
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      Consciousness is something, I cannot explain at all with statistics (or any other mechanism). True AGI by my definition would require consciousness, but as far as I know, there is also no general accepted definition of consciousness either.
      - eru 5y ago
        That's the beauty of the Turing test: it avoids having to worry about consciousness. (Of course, passing the Turing test wouldn't be necessary for intelligence, at most it's sufficient. Otherwise, humans who lost the ability to produce language but are otherwise quite smart and capable would count as non-intelligent.)

Xcelerate 5y ago

> I will continue dismissing AGI until someone can tell me what GI is Here's a rather famous recommendation for a definition of general intelligence: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3329.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3329.pdf Very loosely paraphrasing their paper, general intelligence is the ability to adapt to novel situations and predict the future better than any other algorithm could do. Personally, I think of perfect AGI as this: given that our universe is capable of approximation to arbitrary precision using a universal Turing machine (and infinite time and memory), AGI is the best* computable approximation to Solomonoff induction. *"best" being some mathematical notion of optimality.

idontwantthis 5y ago
So are humans not GI then? We are terrible at predicting the future, in general. "Frustration" is the feeling of things not going how you thought they would or should.
eru 5y ago
> Very loosely paraphrasing their paper, general intelligence is the ability to adapt to novel situations and predict the future better than any other algorithm could do. The 'better than any other algorithm' part seems to make this into a pretty weird definition? By that standard only John von Neumann [0] was intelligent, because every other human wasn't as smart as him? I suspect any reasonable definition of intelligence has to work on a 'good enough' basis, not on optimality. The paper you linked is quite interesting, and I'll be reading it now. I suspect your summary was perhaps a bit too brisk, and their more careful longer definition survives this trivial objection? [0] Replace von Neumann with your favourite genius.
- idontwantthis 5y ago
  Humans are terrible at pretty much everything except what they are specifically highly trained in. von Neuman was a genius, but he also actively promoted nuclear war. Does that mean he is or is not intelligent? Do you think in a world where von Neuman got to nuke the USSR in 1950, we would be happy we gave him the keys?

VladimirGolovin 5y ago

Here's a definition from Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter: Universal Intelligence: A Definition of Machine Intelligence https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329 https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329

ilaksh 5y ago

See M. Mitchell's Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans

simonh 5y ago

What do you mean by "dismiss AGI"? Do you dismiss the idea that we are currently on a developmental path to achieving AGI in the medium term (a lifetime or two) with current approaches, or do you dismiss the idea that AGI is possible at all? I would agree on the former, but that in no way implies the latter.