3 ms·

I think his definition of AGI is off. It does not need human characteristics as it will be machine intelligence, not human intelligence. I think seeking AGI fro

by carom 4y ago

I think his definition of AGI is off. It does not need human characteristics as it will be machine intelligence, not human intelligence. I think seeking AGI from a human-centric view will keep us searching in the wrong locations for things that feel human but are not generally intelligent. For General Machine Intelligence I would like to see research in the following areas - 1) Understanding of the hardware and software on which it runs. This will allow it to introspect and self improve at the lowest level. I think there is a lot of opportunities in research in applying our large language models to machine languages. 2) An internal representation of facts. While there is no guarantee that it would outwardly represent the truth, an intelligence must be able to discern between reality and hallucinations. 3) A probabilistic reasoning engine. Based on its priors about X and Y, find the probability of X -> Y. This could also aid in forgetting, as it could then generalize and discard individual facts. I really believe we should pivot to an idea of Machine Intelligence. Otherwise we will continue chasing metrics that make probabilistic models feel human, but not necessarily bring them to life.

sigmoid10 4y ago
I think all these discussions are pointless, since we lack any rigorous definition of intelligence or "understanding." Going for something "human-like" might be worthwhile simply for the fact that we associate intelligence with humans and thus would more easily accept it in something that mimics us, despite never being able to prove that it is actually intelligent. In the same way, going for some technology that is more rationally explainable might cause humans to doubt its intelligence, because we still don't understand human intelligence and thus people would conclude such a thing can't have human-level intelligence. But that has nothing to do with the most reasonable path towards AGI. Almost all the approaches I've seen listed so far can't be accepted or dismissed with today's state of research - we can only pursue as many of them as possible and hope that the path clears up eventually.
- carom 4y ago
  The second two things I listed deal with current model limitations, one being hallucinations the other being logical reasoning. The first is a hypothesis I have and will likely help with logical reasoning.
  - sigmoid10 4y ago
    All these things fall into the same trap, because they implicitly assume a sound definition of understanding (e.g. for reasoning) and consciousness (e.g. for hallucinations), which we simply don't have. Don't get me wrong, all these things would be nice to have and to some degree we actually already do (at least for internal representations and probabilistic reasoning engines). But with our current level of research you simply can't claim they're better or worse ideas than those listed in the blog.

by carom 4y ago

sigmoid10 4y ago

I think all these discussions are pointless, since we lack any rigorous definition of intelligence or "understanding." Going for something "human-like" might be worthwhile simply for the fact that we associate intelligence with humans and thus would more easily accept it in something that mimics us, despite never being able to prove that it is actually intelligent. In the same way, going for some technology that is more rationally explainable might cause humans to doubt its intelligence, because we still don't understand human intelligence and thus people would conclude such a thing can't have human-level intelligence. But that has nothing to do with the most reasonable path towards AGI. Almost all the approaches I've seen listed so far can't be accepted or dismissed with today's state of research - we can only pursue as many of them as possible and hope that the path clears up eventually.

carom 4y ago
The second two things I listed deal with current model limitations, one being hallucinations the other being logical reasoning. The first is a hypothesis I have and will likely help with logical reasoning.
- sigmoid10 4y ago
  All these things fall into the same trap, because they implicitly assume a sound definition of understanding (e.g. for reasoning) and consciousness (e.g. for hallucinations), which we simply don't have. Don't get me wrong, all these things would be nice to have and to some degree we actually already do (at least for internal representations and probabilistic reasoning engines). But with our current level of research you simply can't claim they're better or worse ideas than those listed in the blog.