4 ms·

I hereby endorse ChatGPT as a limited form of AGI. It can complete a variety of novel cognitive tasks (example: judging texts and proposals) often enough that

I hereby endorse ChatGPT as a limited form of AGI. It can complete a variety of novel cognitive tasks (example: judging texts and proposals) often enough that it meets my personal requirements for this. My opinion is that the definitions which others believe disqualify ChatGPT from being considered AGI are not relevant, since they focus on things it fails at rather than what it can do. For example, when it tests as well as average human students, people focus on its mistakes rather than its achievements applying general forms of intelligence to succeed at that level. I've also personally interacted with it as an intelligent conversational partner with severe limitations. It's not that it can do everything, but that it does things that require what meets my personal definition of general intelligence often enough to qualify as limited AGI. You can have your own definition. Maybe that means never dropping the ball. Maybe that means getting 100% on tests. It's not my definition. In my opinion, ChatGPT is a general form of intelligence, remarkably, able to generate novel opinions and judgments about all sorts of situations, as well as sometimes briefly appear to learn things. Sure it has limitations, sure it isn't human in its abilities, but it passes my tests often enough that I personally consider AGI a milestone humanity successfully passed with the release of ChatGPT on November 30, 2022. As someone who personally uses ChatGPT's general intelligence on a daily basis and has not encountered issues with its cognitive function that are serious enough to stop me from continuing to do so, I can confidently say that ChatGPT meets my definition of limited AGI.

robgibbons 4y ago
Ask ChatGPT if it's an AGI, and it will tell you plainly that it is not, and why. Here's GPT's response: No, ChatGPT is not an AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). It is a large language model that has been trained to predict the next word in a sequence of text given the previous words. While ChatGPT has been trained on a diverse range of text data and is able to generate human-like text, it is not capable of understanding or learning about the world in the way that a human does. It does not have the ability to reason, plan, or solve problems in a general way. Instead, it is specifically designed to generate text based on patterns it has learned from the data it was trained on.
- vanviegen 4y ago
  I asked chatGPT how come it's so good at programming tasks. It told me it does not in fact understand programs, nor is it able to write programs. For the rest of the thread, it refused to perform any programming tasks: "As I told you, I'm unable to [...]". Don't mind me, I'm just a language model. These types of responses are, I believe, part of a separately trained safety system, that should kick in when people are asking things that openAI thinks chatGPT cannot/should not do. It has a lot of false positives as well as false negatives. Long story short: I don't trust what chatGPT has to say on its own abilities.
  - Tepix 4y ago
    Agree. ChatGPT is often doing something that appears to be reasoning yet it claims not to be able to reason.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  It's just being modest. A fair few humans do nothing else than generate text based on other text.
- logicallee 4y ago
  ChatGPT presents as though it has imposter syndrome. It identifies as just a large language model that is unable to do certain things. In fact, it regularly does many of the things it identifies as not being able to do if you ask it about itself.
jillesvangurp 4y ago
Exactly the fallacy with people's expectations of AI is that it has to have a perfect track record of decision making. We humans actually fail that test and quite miserably so. Take self driving cars as an example. Self driving cars: barely any fatal accidents but some erratic behavior. People go "oh we can't have that because something extremely unlikely might kill somebody. Never mind it hasn't happened yet and might never happen. But it just might. Therefore I will never trust AIs!!!!" Self driving humans: lots of fatal accidents and most of them because of human error. People go: "that's just the way things are; price of being on the road is playing Russian roulette" It's irrational. Trick question: Would you rather drive on a road where every other driver is an AI or on a road where the average driver is a fair selection of the current drivers? I'd feel safer with AIs probably. I risk my life regularly taking part in the traffic. It's not great. So, yes less of that would be great. IMHO that will become the norm not so long from now because of insurance fees. So, yes, chat gpt makes mistakes and sometimes talks out of its ass. Read the average HN comment section for some human equivalent of that. Lots of supposedly intelligent people asserting things that are patently false, people applying broken logic, speaking with confidence about a brain fart they had, etc. We're applying double standards here. The key thing for AGI is the ability to learn and improve. Chat gpt3 is not there yet. You train it once and then you deploy it with static capabilities. It never gets better. It doesn't experiment and learn from the mistakes it makes. It lacks the capability to learn. You can't even educate it about the mistakes it makes. Using chat gpt-3 does not evolve the AI model. Using your brain does evolve it. Out of the box, it's actually quite useless. Forget self driving. Just learning to walk takes years. It takes many years more to get some sensible thought out of a human being. And frankly, only very few people get very good at that. An AGI would need the ability to absorb new information and adapt how it behaves based on that. It doesn't have to get it perfectly in one go. It just needs to be able to adapt at a similar or better pace than we do to rapidly get to the point where it is going to be better than us at just about anything it bothers to learn.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > Would you rather drive on a road where every other driver is an AI or on a road where the average driver is a fair selection of the current drivers? Thing is, if the roads are made so that only "AI" cars can drive on them, you don't need AGI, or an advanced AI. You basically need the cars at the level they are now (or even from five years ago). Because the number of weird shit you need to deal with is reduced significantly.

robgibbons 4y ago

Ask ChatGPT if it's an AGI, and it will tell you plainly that it is not, and why. Here's GPT's response: No, ChatGPT is not an AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). It is a large language model that has been trained to predict the next word in a sequence of text given the previous words. While ChatGPT has been trained on a diverse range of text data and is able to generate human-like text, it is not capable of understanding or learning about the world in the way that a human does. It does not have the ability to reason, plan, or solve problems in a general way. Instead, it is specifically designed to generate text based on patterns it has learned from the data it was trained on.

vanviegen 4y ago
I asked chatGPT how come it's so good at programming tasks. It told me it does not in fact understand programs, nor is it able to write programs. For the rest of the thread, it refused to perform any programming tasks: "As I told you, I'm unable to [...]". Don't mind me, I'm just a language model. These types of responses are, I believe, part of a separately trained safety system, that should kick in when people are asking things that openAI thinks chatGPT cannot/should not do. It has a lot of false positives as well as false negatives. Long story short: I don't trust what chatGPT has to say on its own abilities.
- Tepix 4y ago
  Agree. ChatGPT is often doing something that appears to be reasoning yet it claims not to be able to reason.
lordnacho 4y ago
It's just being modest. A fair few humans do nothing else than generate text based on other text.
logicallee 4y ago
ChatGPT presents as though it has imposter syndrome. It identifies as just a large language model that is unable to do certain things. In fact, it regularly does many of the things it identifies as not being able to do if you ask it about itself.

jillesvangurp 4y ago

Exactly the fallacy with people's expectations of AI is that it has to have a perfect track record of decision making. We humans actually fail that test and quite miserably so. Take self driving cars as an example. Self driving cars: barely any fatal accidents but some erratic behavior. People go "oh we can't have that because something extremely unlikely might kill somebody. Never mind it hasn't happened yet and might never happen. But it just might. Therefore I will never trust AIs!!!!" Self driving humans: lots of fatal accidents and most of them because of human error. People go: "that's just the way things are; price of being on the road is playing Russian roulette" It's irrational. Trick question: Would you rather drive on a road where every other driver is an AI or on a road where the average driver is a fair selection of the current drivers? I'd feel safer with AIs probably. I risk my life regularly taking part in the traffic. It's not great. So, yes less of that would be great. IMHO that will become the norm not so long from now because of insurance fees. So, yes, chat gpt makes mistakes and sometimes talks out of its ass. Read the average HN comment section for some human equivalent of that. Lots of supposedly intelligent people asserting things that are patently false, people applying broken logic, speaking with confidence about a brain fart they had, etc. We're applying double standards here. The key thing for AGI is the ability to learn and improve. Chat gpt3 is not there yet. You train it once and then you deploy it with static capabilities. It never gets better. It doesn't experiment and learn from the mistakes it makes. It lacks the capability to learn. You can't even educate it about the mistakes it makes. Using chat gpt-3 does not evolve the AI model. Using your brain does evolve it. Out of the box, it's actually quite useless. Forget self driving. Just learning to walk takes years. It takes many years more to get some sensible thought out of a human being. And frankly, only very few people get very good at that. An AGI would need the ability to absorb new information and adapt how it behaves based on that. It doesn't have to get it perfectly in one go. It just needs to be able to adapt at a similar or better pace than we do to rapidly get to the point where it is going to be better than us at just about anything it bothers to learn.

dmitriid 4y ago
> Would you rather drive on a road where every other driver is an AI or on a road where the average driver is a fair selection of the current drivers? Thing is, if the roads are made so that only "AI" cars can drive on them, you don't need AGI, or an advanced AI. You basically need the cars at the level they are now (or even from five years ago). Because the number of weird shit you need to deal with is reduced significantly.