3 ms·

Propositions: 1. GPT3 is AGI 2. In combination with people, GPT3 is superintelligence Strong claims. Anyone care to argue for or against?

jmfldn 4y ago
There is zero evidence for the AGI claim or even a weaker intelligence claim. GPT 3 is just a search engine on steroids. I'm regularly suprised by the results but it's honestly just an illusion as far as 'intelligence' goes. This has nothing to do with intelligence, and anyone who thinks otherwise is succumbing to the Eliza effect.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Why can't the same thing be said of human intelligence? If we knew more about neuroscience it'd probably seem just as trivial. Wetware trained on examples we've seen. Experience encoding neurons. Neurons running on the laws of physics. Data goes in, endogenous processing happens, then outputs. I don't see why it's categorically different. ANNs are just demystified because we made them and know how they work.
  - jmfldn 4y ago
    You've answered your own question. "why can't the same thing be said of human intelligence" "if we knew more about neuroscience..." So that's why we can't say the same thing. Fwiw, my take is that whatever the brain does, its a machine of some sort but possibly not even a turing machine. Many disagree but noone can prove me wrong. Yet at least.
    - pennaMan 4y ago
      So are we intelligence or just a pattern recognition system on steroids?
      - jmfldn 4y ago
        The human mind in its totality, ie including consciousness, is a fundamentally different kind of machine to a computer. It's a machine, there is nothing supernatural here, and I am not invoking a 'god of the gaps' argument. However, like Roger Penrose, I think that our consciousness is not a computation for example. That kind of thing seems pretty key. If that is true, and what we call 'understanding' is a function of consciousness, then that's going to have implications. It doesn't matter by the way, if Turing machines can't replicate human minds, why would we want that anyway? "Intelligent" systems that provide outputs and solve problems for us is what we want right? I think we'll have something that is, for all intents and purposes, "AGI", using classical computers. A 'philosophical zombie' in other words.
trention 4y ago
GPT3 works only on text, both input and output. A system thus constrained, solely by virtue of that fact, is by definition not an AGI.
- kevincox 4y ago
  Why not? You can control robots with a sequence of text instructions.
- taneq 4y ago
  You can represent anything as text.
  - trention 4y ago
    That's either under some pretty narrow definition of "anything" or some pretty broad definition of "text". You can start proving your point by representing the smell of incense as "text" and see how far that takes you.
- pennaMan 4y ago
  Do the constraints our brains work under disquallify us from having general intelligence?
  - trention 4y ago
    No.
    - pennaMan 4y ago
      Then your defintion of intelligence is kind of arbitrary
dr_dshiv 4y ago
Intelligence is the capacity to survive and thrive by taking actions that are likely to succeed. Artificial intelligence is defined by the ability to take actions that maximize measures of success. Artificial general intelligence is defined by the ability to operate intelligently regardless of context; ie, not merely trained in a particular context but capable of abstracting and generally succeeding in a range of contexts roughly as broad as a human. By those reasonable and common definitions, GPT3 seems like a form of AGI. I mean, it is used for protein synthesis sequences, robotic sequences, design sequences— and it is a fabulous writer in a vast range of domains. It doesn’t need to be god to be AGI v1. I work with it every day and I recognize my contributions to it. But it is so generally intelligent. That is, it produces successful outcomes (useful text) in a vast range of contexts.
runeks 4y ago
> Anyone care to argue for or against? You go first.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  I tried in the thread to give clear definitions of intelligence and AGI in order to make an argument for. I didn’t give references for the definitions, but for intelligence, I think Legg and Hutter (2007) & Russell and Norvig (2010) work. And Wikipedia has some tests for AGI. I asked GPT3 “if you were going to go into a person’s house and make a cup of coffee, detail what steps you’d take.” GPT3 responded with text that is indistinguishable from what I’d expect from a high school graduate, at least. 1. Knock on the door or ring the doorbell. 2. Wait for the person to answer the door. 3. If the person invites you in, step into the house. 4. Find the kitchen and locate the coffee pot and coffee beans. 5. Measure out the desired amount of coffee beans and grind them. 6. Place the ground coffee in the coffee pot. 7. Fill the coffee pot with water and turn it on. 8. Wait for the coffee to finish brewing. 9. Pour the coffee into a mug and enjoy.

jmfldn 4y ago

There is zero evidence for the AGI claim or even a weaker intelligence claim. GPT 3 is just a search engine on steroids. I'm regularly suprised by the results but it's honestly just an illusion as far as 'intelligence' goes. This has nothing to do with intelligence, and anyone who thinks otherwise is succumbing to the Eliza effect.

hackerlight 4y ago
Why can't the same thing be said of human intelligence? If we knew more about neuroscience it'd probably seem just as trivial. Wetware trained on examples we've seen. Experience encoding neurons. Neurons running on the laws of physics. Data goes in, endogenous processing happens, then outputs. I don't see why it's categorically different. ANNs are just demystified because we made them and know how they work.
- jmfldn 4y ago
  You've answered your own question. "why can't the same thing be said of human intelligence" "if we knew more about neuroscience..." So that's why we can't say the same thing. Fwiw, my take is that whatever the brain does, its a machine of some sort but possibly not even a turing machine. Many disagree but noone can prove me wrong. Yet at least.
  - pennaMan 4y ago
    So are we intelligence or just a pattern recognition system on steroids?
    - jmfldn 4y ago
      The human mind in its totality, ie including consciousness, is a fundamentally different kind of machine to a computer. It's a machine, there is nothing supernatural here, and I am not invoking a 'god of the gaps' argument. However, like Roger Penrose, I think that our consciousness is not a computation for example. That kind of thing seems pretty key. If that is true, and what we call 'understanding' is a function of consciousness, then that's going to have implications. It doesn't matter by the way, if Turing machines can't replicate human minds, why would we want that anyway? "Intelligent" systems that provide outputs and solve problems for us is what we want right? I think we'll have something that is, for all intents and purposes, "AGI", using classical computers. A 'philosophical zombie' in other words.

trention 4y ago

GPT3 works only on text, both input and output. A system thus constrained, solely by virtue of that fact, is by definition not an AGI.

kevincox 4y ago
Why not? You can control robots with a sequence of text instructions.
taneq 4y ago
You can represent anything as text.
- trention 4y ago
  That's either under some pretty narrow definition of "anything" or some pretty broad definition of "text". You can start proving your point by representing the smell of incense as "text" and see how far that takes you.
pennaMan 4y ago
Do the constraints our brains work under disquallify us from having general intelligence?
- trention 4y ago
  No.
  - pennaMan 4y ago
    Then your defintion of intelligence is kind of arbitrary

dr_dshiv 4y ago

Intelligence is the capacity to survive and thrive by taking actions that are likely to succeed. Artificial intelligence is defined by the ability to take actions that maximize measures of success. Artificial general intelligence is defined by the ability to operate intelligently regardless of context; ie, not merely trained in a particular context but capable of abstracting and generally succeeding in a range of contexts roughly as broad as a human. By those reasonable and common definitions, GPT3 seems like a form of AGI. I mean, it is used for protein synthesis sequences, robotic sequences, design sequences— and it is a fabulous writer in a vast range of domains. It doesn’t need to be god to be AGI v1. I work with it every day and I recognize my contributions to it. But it is so generally intelligent. That is, it produces successful outcomes (useful text) in a vast range of contexts.

runeks 4y ago

> Anyone care to argue for or against? You go first.

dr_dshiv 4y ago
I tried in the thread to give clear definitions of intelligence and AGI in order to make an argument for. I didn’t give references for the definitions, but for intelligence, I think Legg and Hutter (2007) & Russell and Norvig (2010) work. And Wikipedia has some tests for AGI. I asked GPT3 “if you were going to go into a person’s house and make a cup of coffee, detail what steps you’d take.” GPT3 responded with text that is indistinguishable from what I’d expect from a high school graduate, at least. 1. Knock on the door or ring the doorbell. 2. Wait for the person to answer the door. 3. If the person invites you in, step into the house. 4. Find the kitchen and locate the coffee pot and coffee beans. 5. Measure out the desired amount of coffee beans and grind them. 6. Place the ground coffee in the coffee pot. 7. Fill the coffee pot with water and turn it on. 8. Wait for the coffee to finish brewing. 9. Pour the coffee into a mug and enjoy.