3 ms·

> I don't think GPT on its own will lead anywhere close to AGI Serious question: why isn't ChatGPT already considered AGI? It looks general to me in its domain

> I don't think GPT on its own will lead anywhere close to AGI Serious question: why isn't ChatGPT already considered AGI? It looks general to me in its domain (text). It can indifferently: understand and execute instructions, even when provided in incomplete or ambiguous form; it can reason step by step; it can compose simple poems; it can attempt explaining jokes, it can explain and modify code, and reacts appropriately to almost any request. In all this it shows a perfectly natural "understanding" of language and context, integrated with a good amount of common sense and knowledge about the world. Of course it's not perfect, its limits show pretty quickly in almost all these fields. But still, it's general within its own domain..Aren't we just moving goalposts?

elicksaur 4y ago
One of your examples is the key: “attempt” explaining jokes. Really, it’s “attempting” to do all of the items you list, and can seemingly do only very simple ones. Try and get it to produce a poem that doesn’t rhyme. Try to get it to be internally consistent when explaining something abstract. Play the two truths and a lie game with it. It doesn’t understand any of the items you listed because it has no concepts, just math.
- throw310822 4y ago
  > Try and get it to produce a poem that doesn’t rhyme Good one, I hadn't tried that. Seems that the mention of a "poem" puts it in a special frame from which it finds very hard to escape (I managed to get it to avoid rhyming in the first lines, but then it reverts to rhymes). However, > it’s “attempting” to do all of the items you list Yes, that's ok. I don't think we should confuse AGI with human-level of even superintelligence: it's perfectly ok for ChatGPT to try and not quite make it on this or that task. General intelligence doesn't mean being able to perform every task that can be performed by at least one human being; by that metric we would all fail. Neither it means not behaving in any obviously obtuse way in every situation, we would also fail that test given enough time. ChatGPT displays understanding of context, common sense, metaphors, inference, intuition, abductive reasoning. It actually answers correctly to tricky questions or scenarios that have been brought in the past as examples of what an AGI should be capable of. It's clear that it's not good enough yet to perform even a simple intellectual job reliably, but that's not really what AGI is. Have you ever interacted with people with Down's syndrome? Would you ever say that they lack general intelligence?

elicksaur 4y ago

One of your examples is the key: “attempt” explaining jokes. Really, it’s “attempting” to do all of the items you list, and can seemingly do only very simple ones. Try and get it to produce a poem that doesn’t rhyme. Try to get it to be internally consistent when explaining something abstract. Play the two truths and a lie game with it. It doesn’t understand any of the items you listed because it has no concepts, just math.

throw310822 4y ago
> Try and get it to produce a poem that doesn’t rhyme Good one, I hadn't tried that. Seems that the mention of a "poem" puts it in a special frame from which it finds very hard to escape (I managed to get it to avoid rhyming in the first lines, but then it reverts to rhymes). However, > it’s “attempting” to do all of the items you list Yes, that's ok. I don't think we should confuse AGI with human-level of even superintelligence: it's perfectly ok for ChatGPT to try and not quite make it on this or that task. General intelligence doesn't mean being able to perform every task that can be performed by at least one human being; by that metric we would all fail. Neither it means not behaving in any obviously obtuse way in every situation, we would also fail that test given enough time. ChatGPT displays understanding of context, common sense, metaphors, inference, intuition, abductive reasoning. It actually answers correctly to tricky questions or scenarios that have been brought in the past as examples of what an AGI should be capable of. It's clear that it's not good enough yet to perform even a simple intellectual job reliably, but that's not really what AGI is. Have you ever interacted with people with Down's syndrome? Would you ever say that they lack general intelligence?