7 ms·

> What does human-level intelligence mean? What about a simple test: it means being able to create better versions of ChatGPT and StableDiffusion. Can an AI c

> What does human-level intelligence mean? What about a simple test: it means being able to create better versions of ChatGPT and StableDiffusion. Can an AI create a better version of itself, all by itself? Because humans are going to create better versions of ChatGPT. So no matter the exact definition of "intelligence" or "human intelligence", the goal is simple: create a better version of itself and it'll be considered intelligent. Can't do that? It's simply not matching human-level intelligence. So I don't see how intelligent machines wouldn't lead to "intelligence explosion" and the "technological singularity".

dbspin 4y ago
> What about a simple test: it means being able to create better versions of ChatGPT and StableDiffusion. This doesn't follow at all. An ant will haphazardly create a better (fitter) version of an ant simply through breeding and natural selection. Meanwhile humans cannot intentionally create 'better versions' of humans (with any degree of reliability for a given selection criteria). There's no intelligence on earth (arguably including humans) whose goal is 'to create a better version of itself'. The goal for lifeforms is reproduction, specifically at the levels of gene and individual selection. Increases in fitness are due to the process of the environment shaping the adaptation. So it follows that while a future GPT might well be able to duplicate or improve itself, that wouldn't directly reflect its intelligence in comparison to living intelligences. Nor would it necessarily generalise beyond domain specificity.
- Retric 4y ago
  Humanity has developed technology to improve humanity. Glasses correct issues, and microscopes added new capacity. We haven’t gone down the genetic engineering path but we could fix issues with our DNA.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    > Humanity has developed technology to improve humanity. I would argue that the vast majority of technology has hurt humanity and that a large proportion of technology is simply solving problems caused by other technology.
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      I am not entirely convinced you really hold this view, but if so, you could reduce technology's pernicious effects on yourself by not participating in this discussion.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - bmitc 4y ago
        Is this a discussion, or are you just being spiteful? Because that's a little much, isn't it?
        mannykannot 4y ago
        It is, and for that I apologize. I must admit that I strongly doubted you truly hold this view, and suspected you were just saying it here in order to be argumentative, but now I see you do. I realize that it is not strictly inconsistent to both take advantage of technology and hold that its net effects are harmful. Even so, it is beside the point - humanity has demonstrably been applying its intelligence to improving technology's capabilities, which is a fact regardless of whether it has been beneficial, and that is enough for it being a candidate measure of machine intelligence. I realize that there's an argument saying that if the machines start improving themselves of their own volition, it would be the beginning of the end for humanity, and I do not think that it can be summarily dismissed. If it turns out to be correct, you would be vindicated! - though neither of us want that.
        bmitc 4y ago
        I do hold the opinion, and I’m continually working it out and finding information that quantifies it. I at least posted some numbers in an adjacent comment. I know it sounds extreme, but I can’t see any way around it. Stress levels, depression and anxiety, food problems, wealthy inequality and concentration, loneliness, and more are hitting all time highs by no small margin. And a lot of this has occurred over the past 100-200 years. I think that even without further investigation, one has to admit a strong correlation to industrialization. Societal changes, I would argue, are largely driven by technological developments. And this ignores environmental and non-human animal suffering. Orcas in the Pacific Northwest are riddle with toxins and starve directly due to human technology. The waters off the cost of India and Thailand are so hypoxic that fish must swim at the top surface of the water, which has led to dramatic changes in whale feeding behavior. This is again due to technology. Again due to technology, we have decimated forests. These numbers are from memory, but I believe we have decreased worldwide forest coverage from around 75% in the early 1900s to around 25% today (these are rough numbers from memory). The numbers paint a pretty grim picture. Yes, a lot of medical technology is wonderful, but from everything I can see, industrialization is generally not causing harmful trends to go down. The argument isn’t that all technology is bad.
- adrian_b 4y ago
  While it is impossible to predict if and when humans will become able to make other more intelligent humans, there are good chances that during this century, maybe already during the first half of this century, it will become possible to make versions of humans with various simple improvements, for instance with the ability to make vitamin C in the liver, like all our more distant ancestors and relatives, in order to no longer be dependent on an adequate daily intake from external sources.
albertzeyer 4y ago
So, most humans are not intelligent then? Because I don't think that an average human can create a better version of ChatGPT / StableDiffusion. Or a better version of itself, if that is the baseline. Or do you count evolution here? But evolution does not necessarily lead to higher intelligence. But also: Once you have some model or algorithm for intelligence, where you just need to scale up the size / training data, is it really such a big intellectual accomplishment to just scale it up? But what exactly is your definition of AGI or AGI-hard now? That something can improve itself? But what does that mean? Does a std::vector count, as it can resize itself when it needs more memory? Or wide set of intelligence tests? So, is ChatGPT then already human-level intelligent? You can ask it how to improve itself. I'm sure the answers it will give will actually improve it.
- snordgren 4y ago
  We already know that humans are human-level intelligent, so we don't need to devise a test to prove that they are. If AI >= highest level of human intelligence, then AI > human intelligence. It is less accurate because it will miss any AI that achieves a precisely human level of intelligence, but it is probably also an easier test to define than others. Of course simply increasing the scale of the model does not count as an improvement, there is nothing novel in that suggestion. But you are right that it opens a can of worms as to what an improvement is. Does an improvement count if it improves the model in the 80% of scenarios that only appear 20% of the time, while similarly reducing its performance in the 20% of scenarios that appear 80% of the time?
- mannykannot 4y ago
  What would be the point of defining intelligence as only that which average humans can do? Is what humanity as a species can achieve something else? Does putting aside the latter help? > You can ask [ChatGPT] how to improve itself. I'm sure the answers it will give will actually improve it. Personally, I'm skeptical, but at least it is testable.
  - cutemonster 4y ago
    There's probably lots of texts out there about the next steps how to improve ChatGPT, and it simply would recite some of that? It could help the curious person learn a bit, but wouldn't add anything that wasn't already known. Maybe it'd say: "give me more and more accurate training data, remove bad biased data". True but useless, already known. Or to a runner, how to get better: Practice more running, this and that exercise. True but nothing new.
ipunchghosts 4y ago
Isnt this what a Gödel machine is supposed to do.
IIAOPSW 4y ago
>Can an AI create a better version of itself, all by itself? Can you?

dbspin 4y ago

> What about a simple test: it means being able to create better versions of ChatGPT and StableDiffusion. This doesn't follow at all. An ant will haphazardly create a better (fitter) version of an ant simply through breeding and natural selection. Meanwhile humans cannot intentionally create 'better versions' of humans (with any degree of reliability for a given selection criteria). There's no intelligence on earth (arguably including humans) whose goal is 'to create a better version of itself'. The goal for lifeforms is reproduction, specifically at the levels of gene and individual selection. Increases in fitness are due to the process of the environment shaping the adaptation. So it follows that while a future GPT might well be able to duplicate or improve itself, that wouldn't directly reflect its intelligence in comparison to living intelligences. Nor would it necessarily generalise beyond domain specificity.

Retric 4y ago
Humanity has developed technology to improve humanity. Glasses correct issues, and microscopes added new capacity. We haven’t gone down the genetic engineering path but we could fix issues with our DNA.
- bmitc 4y ago
  > Humanity has developed technology to improve humanity. I would argue that the vast majority of technology has hurt humanity and that a large proportion of technology is simply solving problems caused by other technology.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    I am not entirely convinced you really hold this view, but if so, you could reduce technology's pernicious effects on yourself by not participating in this discussion.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - bmitc 4y ago
      Is this a discussion, or are you just being spiteful? Because that's a little much, isn't it?
      - mannykannot 4y ago
        It is, and for that I apologize. I must admit that I strongly doubted you truly hold this view, and suspected you were just saying it here in order to be argumentative, but now I see you do. I realize that it is not strictly inconsistent to both take advantage of technology and hold that its net effects are harmful. Even so, it is beside the point - humanity has demonstrably been applying its intelligence to improving technology's capabilities, which is a fact regardless of whether it has been beneficial, and that is enough for it being a candidate measure of machine intelligence. I realize that there's an argument saying that if the machines start improving themselves of their own volition, it would be the beginning of the end for humanity, and I do not think that it can be summarily dismissed. If it turns out to be correct, you would be vindicated! - though neither of us want that.
        bmitc 4y ago
        I do hold the opinion, and I’m continually working it out and finding information that quantifies it. I at least posted some numbers in an adjacent comment. I know it sounds extreme, but I can’t see any way around it. Stress levels, depression and anxiety, food problems, wealthy inequality and concentration, loneliness, and more are hitting all time highs by no small margin. And a lot of this has occurred over the past 100-200 years. I think that even without further investigation, one has to admit a strong correlation to industrialization. Societal changes, I would argue, are largely driven by technological developments. And this ignores environmental and non-human animal suffering. Orcas in the Pacific Northwest are riddle with toxins and starve directly due to human technology. The waters off the cost of India and Thailand are so hypoxic that fish must swim at the top surface of the water, which has led to dramatic changes in whale feeding behavior. This is again due to technology. Again due to technology, we have decimated forests. These numbers are from memory, but I believe we have decreased worldwide forest coverage from around 75% in the early 1900s to around 25% today (these are rough numbers from memory). The numbers paint a pretty grim picture. Yes, a lot of medical technology is wonderful, but from everything I can see, industrialization is generally not causing harmful trends to go down. The argument isn’t that all technology is bad.
adrian_b 4y ago
While it is impossible to predict if and when humans will become able to make other more intelligent humans, there are good chances that during this century, maybe already during the first half of this century, it will become possible to make versions of humans with various simple improvements, for instance with the ability to make vitamin C in the liver, like all our more distant ancestors and relatives, in order to no longer be dependent on an adequate daily intake from external sources.

albertzeyer 4y ago

So, most humans are not intelligent then? Because I don't think that an average human can create a better version of ChatGPT / StableDiffusion. Or a better version of itself, if that is the baseline. Or do you count evolution here? But evolution does not necessarily lead to higher intelligence. But also: Once you have some model or algorithm for intelligence, where you just need to scale up the size / training data, is it really such a big intellectual accomplishment to just scale it up? But what exactly is your definition of AGI or AGI-hard now? That something can improve itself? But what does that mean? Does a std::vector count, as it can resize itself when it needs more memory? Or wide set of intelligence tests? So, is ChatGPT then already human-level intelligent? You can ask it how to improve itself. I'm sure the answers it will give will actually improve it.

snordgren 4y ago
We already know that humans are human-level intelligent, so we don't need to devise a test to prove that they are. If AI >= highest level of human intelligence, then AI > human intelligence. It is less accurate because it will miss any AI that achieves a precisely human level of intelligence, but it is probably also an easier test to define than others. Of course simply increasing the scale of the model does not count as an improvement, there is nothing novel in that suggestion. But you are right that it opens a can of worms as to what an improvement is. Does an improvement count if it improves the model in the 80% of scenarios that only appear 20% of the time, while similarly reducing its performance in the 20% of scenarios that appear 80% of the time?
mannykannot 4y ago
What would be the point of defining intelligence as only that which average humans can do? Is what humanity as a species can achieve something else? Does putting aside the latter help? > You can ask [ChatGPT] how to improve itself. I'm sure the answers it will give will actually improve it. Personally, I'm skeptical, but at least it is testable.
- cutemonster 4y ago
  There's probably lots of texts out there about the next steps how to improve ChatGPT, and it simply would recite some of that? It could help the curious person learn a bit, but wouldn't add anything that wasn't already known. Maybe it'd say: "give me more and more accurate training data, remove bad biased data". True but useless, already known. Or to a runner, how to get better: Practice more running, this and that exercise. True but nothing new.

ipunchghosts 4y ago

Isnt this what a Gödel machine is supposed to do.

IIAOPSW 4y ago

>Can an AI create a better version of itself, all by itself? Can you?