3 ms·

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 vers

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.
- albertzeyer 4y ago
  Btw, I asked it: > How can you improve GPT3 or ChatGPT? Answer: > There are several ways that GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3) and ChatGPT could be improved: > 1. Increase the size of the model: GPT-3 is already one of the largest language models available, but increasing the size of the model could allow it to perform even better on tasks such as language translation and summarization. > 2. Train the model on more diverse data: GPT-3 is trained on a large dataset, but it could be improved by training it on a wider range of data sources, including more diverse languages and dialects. > 3. Improve the model's ability to handle long-range dependencies: Language models like GPT-3 and ChatGPT are sometimes limited in their ability to understand and generate text that contains long-range dependencies, such as references to events or characters that were introduced earlier in the conversation. > 4. Enhance the model's ability to handle out-of-vocabulary words and rare words: GPT-3 and ChatGPT can sometimes struggle to generate coherent text when they encounter words that are not in their vocabulary. Improving the model's ability to handle these cases could improve its overall performance. > 5. Train the model on more tasks and domains: GPT-3 and ChatGPT are trained on a wide range of tasks, but there is always room for improvement. Training the model on more tasks and domains could make it more versatile and able to handle a wider range of inputs. It is probably right with every point. So it can improve itself. Yes, none of this is really novel. All this is basically well know. But so what? This is still a good answer to the question. TacticalCoder suggested this test. I'm not arguing that this was a good test. Actually I already implied in my earlier answer that I don't think this is really a good test for AGI or human-level intelligence.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
>Because I don't think that an average human can create a better version of ChatGPT / StableDiffusion probably not without lots of years of education, no.
- cutemonster 4y ago
  An average human cannot ever.

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.
albertzeyer 4y ago
Btw, I asked it: > How can you improve GPT3 or ChatGPT? Answer: > There are several ways that GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3) and ChatGPT could be improved: > 1. Increase the size of the model: GPT-3 is already one of the largest language models available, but increasing the size of the model could allow it to perform even better on tasks such as language translation and summarization. > 2. Train the model on more diverse data: GPT-3 is trained on a large dataset, but it could be improved by training it on a wider range of data sources, including more diverse languages and dialects. > 3. Improve the model's ability to handle long-range dependencies: Language models like GPT-3 and ChatGPT are sometimes limited in their ability to understand and generate text that contains long-range dependencies, such as references to events or characters that were introduced earlier in the conversation. > 4. Enhance the model's ability to handle out-of-vocabulary words and rare words: GPT-3 and ChatGPT can sometimes struggle to generate coherent text when they encounter words that are not in their vocabulary. Improving the model's ability to handle these cases could improve its overall performance. > 5. Train the model on more tasks and domains: GPT-3 and ChatGPT are trained on a wide range of tasks, but there is always room for improvement. Training the model on more tasks and domains could make it more versatile and able to handle a wider range of inputs. It is probably right with every point. So it can improve itself. Yes, none of this is really novel. All this is basically well know. But so what? This is still a good answer to the question. TacticalCoder suggested this test. I'm not arguing that this was a good test. Actually I already implied in my earlier answer that I don't think this is really a good test for AGI or human-level intelligence.
- mannykannot 4y ago

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

>Because I don't think that an average human can create a better version of ChatGPT / StableDiffusion probably not without lots of years of education, no.

cutemonster 4y ago
An average human cannot ever.