3 ms·

> As LeCun always says: The term "AGI" is a bit ill-formed. What does "general" really mean? Human intelligence is not really general. It's actually very very s

by bmitc 4y ago

> As LeCun always says: The term "AGI" is a bit ill-formed. What does "general" really mean? Human intelligence is not really general. It's actually very very specialized towards the world we live in. So he prefers the term "human-level intelligence", or maybe super-human-level at some point. That’s kind of a silly semantic argument though. It also assumes that everyone interested in AGI is trying to make “human-level” intelligence. So my argument would be that: * not everyone interested in AGI is interested in replicating human intelligence, * human-level intelligence is undefined, * there’s an implicit assumption by your paraphrasing (quoting?) of LeCun that assumes human intelligence is the most general we know of, which is something we don’t have the ability to know. So I think AGI is fine unless you’re explicitly trying to mimic human intelligence.

albertzeyer 4y ago
I just wanted to stress the point that "general" is misleading (no intelligence will ever be truly general), and the term "AGI" is somewhat unclear. Some people mean human-level intelligence, some people just mean some reasonable intelligent agent in a number of tasks, some people really mean a truly-general intelligence, being able to handle any problem (unlike a human). In the post, when arguing about "AGI-hard", this is very relevant. For a truly-general intelligence, it makes sense. But I think most people would not understand "AGI" this way. For some more narrow general intelligence, I don't think "AGI-hard" makes sense. Driving needs some intelligence which is a bit generic but still different to other general intelligences, so it is not AGI-hard.
- lonelyasacloud 4y ago
  > Driving needs some intelligence which is a bit generic but still different to other general intelligences, so it is not AGI-hard. For automated driving to be acceptable within society it is going have to be at least as good as an average human driver. In an urban street most non-speeding human drivers will see a child with a puppy off the lead and will understand that that child will be very likely to run after the puppy if it jumps into the road (And will most likely slow down in anticipation). AGI, according to Wikipedia, is "the ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can". How in general can an automated driving perform as well as a system with a human in the loop if it does not richly model human behaviour, i.e. achieve AGI?
comboy 4y ago
> So I think AGI is fine unless you’re explicitly trying to mimic human intelligence. Humans we will only recognize AGI when it can simulate all our flaws. We won't think the computer is able to see properly until it can observe the same optical illusions that we do (which are visual system flaws). By general we mean being able to completely relate to *our* experience. We are very biased even when it comes to say math, focusing on certain aspects and representations, which if are easily digestible for our brain, thus must be sign of intelligence. Huge numbers calculations - not intelligence, we cannot do that. Doing 100 problems way better than we do but doing mistake in 1 that is obvious to us - clearly not intelligence. If it doesn't have the same framework for survival as we created with our neurochemistry - nope, it should be able to understand it. Even though we cannot wrap our heads around an octopus feelings. Just looking at our understanding of say chimpanzees, shows how close minded we are regarding intelligence in general. So basically, I agree with all you said, I'm just very convinced that most people will not assign AGI label to anything which doesn't mimic human perception (along with all of its flaws). I mean, maybe not necessarily mimic it, but at least kind of have a virtual machine knowing what how human would perceive it. Otherwise we'll think it doesn't understand the world.
- mwigdahl 4y ago
  I think this point is often missed. We live in daily contact with pet animals that think entirely differently than us, and even humans with special needs behave in radically different ways and value radically different things in their lives. If tiny variations in the human brain are able to wreak such profound differences in motivation, behavior, and cognition, why are people fixated on expecting banal human hormonally-driven power-seeking and survival behavior from a constructed mind with a totally different architecture in an entirely different substrate?

by bmitc 4y ago

albertzeyer 4y ago

I just wanted to stress the point that "general" is misleading (no intelligence will ever be truly general), and the term "AGI" is somewhat unclear. Some people mean human-level intelligence, some people just mean some reasonable intelligent agent in a number of tasks, some people really mean a truly-general intelligence, being able to handle any problem (unlike a human). In the post, when arguing about "AGI-hard", this is very relevant. For a truly-general intelligence, it makes sense. But I think most people would not understand "AGI" this way. For some more narrow general intelligence, I don't think "AGI-hard" makes sense. Driving needs some intelligence which is a bit generic but still different to other general intelligences, so it is not AGI-hard.

lonelyasacloud 4y ago
> Driving needs some intelligence which is a bit generic but still different to other general intelligences, so it is not AGI-hard. For automated driving to be acceptable within society it is going have to be at least as good as an average human driver. In an urban street most non-speeding human drivers will see a child with a puppy off the lead and will understand that that child will be very likely to run after the puppy if it jumps into the road (And will most likely slow down in anticipation). AGI, according to Wikipedia, is "the ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can". How in general can an automated driving perform as well as a system with a human in the loop if it does not richly model human behaviour, i.e. achieve AGI?

comboy 4y ago

> So I think AGI is fine unless you’re explicitly trying to mimic human intelligence. Humans we will only recognize AGI when it can simulate all our flaws. We won't think the computer is able to see properly until it can observe the same optical illusions that we do (which are visual system flaws). By general we mean being able to completely relate to *our* experience. We are very biased even when it comes to say math, focusing on certain aspects and representations, which if are easily digestible for our brain, thus must be sign of intelligence. Huge numbers calculations - not intelligence, we cannot do that. Doing 100 problems way better than we do but doing mistake in 1 that is obvious to us - clearly not intelligence. If it doesn't have the same framework for survival as we created with our neurochemistry - nope, it should be able to understand it. Even though we cannot wrap our heads around an octopus feelings. Just looking at our understanding of say chimpanzees, shows how close minded we are regarding intelligence in general. So basically, I agree with all you said, I'm just very convinced that most people will not assign AGI label to anything which doesn't mimic human perception (along with all of its flaws). I mean, maybe not necessarily mimic it, but at least kind of have a virtual machine knowing what how human would perceive it. Otherwise we'll think it doesn't understand the world.

mwigdahl 4y ago
I think this point is often missed. We live in daily contact with pet animals that think entirely differently than us, and even humans with special needs behave in radically different ways and value radically different things in their lives. If tiny variations in the human brain are able to wreak such profound differences in motivation, behavior, and cognition, why are people fixated on expecting banal human hormonally-driven power-seeking and survival behavior from a constructed mind with a totally different architecture in an entirely different substrate?