3 ms·

“development on this model will not lead to General Intelligence, which is not a data training/stat problem altogether” Why is everyone so damn sure about this

“development on this model will not lead to General Intelligence, which is not a data training/stat problem altogether” Why is everyone so damn sure about this? Not to pick on you—I’ve read so many self-backpatting comments that feel the need to reassuringly say something like: “we all know this isn’t AGI and couldn’t possibly be and won’t lead to it.” I don’t think this is so clear cut.

Joeri 4y ago
It is because of alan turing. The turing test has arbitrarily put the bar at “must successfully emulate a human being to be labeled general intelligence”. I don’t find the turing test useful at all as a benchmark. We don’t need something to successfully emulate a human to do useful intelligent work. ChatGPT can already do that work in many domains and many languages, if working as an assistant to a human. I honestly don’t know why we shouldn’t call that general intelligence. The argument “but it doesn’t understand” is not useful either, and it is the one I read most from people who deeply understand how it works. Many (most?) people don’t really understand what they do for a living either, they’re just going through the motions and need supervision to prevent then going off the rails. Just like ChatGPT. And still someone finds their “intelligence” useful enough to pay them for it.
- lostmsu 4y ago
  I can see why not believing Turing Test is a useful benchmark means that you can't deduce ChatGPT is sentient from it being able to pass one. But how do you deduce it is not AGI without some other reasonable benchmark? Moreover, how can you deduce GPT-4 can't spontaneously become one even in principle without having that benchmark? Those two are the questions to the skeptics really.
  - dr_dshiv 4y ago
    Right. I don’t see why human-level AI is the criteria for AGI. I think we can have weak AGI, potentially long before we have strong AGI. We need clear benchmarks, otherwise it turns into theology.
bootsmann 4y ago
Because at the end of the day its still a bunch of linear algebra optimized to predict the next “word” that would fit into a sentence. This is very evident because you can convince it of anything because it desperately needs the conversation to make sense.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  And why would mathematics not be a road to intelligence?
Aperocky 4y ago
Because general intelligence don't arise from statistical analysis of extremely large amount of data. Think human child, or even adults. They don't know near the amount of data that ChatGPT has been trained on, yet react far better when they are put in a situation that they have never seen before.

Joeri 4y ago

It is because of alan turing. The turing test has arbitrarily put the bar at “must successfully emulate a human being to be labeled general intelligence”. I don’t find the turing test useful at all as a benchmark. We don’t need something to successfully emulate a human to do useful intelligent work. ChatGPT can already do that work in many domains and many languages, if working as an assistant to a human. I honestly don’t know why we shouldn’t call that general intelligence. The argument “but it doesn’t understand” is not useful either, and it is the one I read most from people who deeply understand how it works. Many (most?) people don’t really understand what they do for a living either, they’re just going through the motions and need supervision to prevent then going off the rails. Just like ChatGPT. And still someone finds their “intelligence” useful enough to pay them for it.

lostmsu 4y ago
I can see why not believing Turing Test is a useful benchmark means that you can't deduce ChatGPT is sentient from it being able to pass one. But how do you deduce it is not AGI without some other reasonable benchmark? Moreover, how can you deduce GPT-4 can't spontaneously become one even in principle without having that benchmark? Those two are the questions to the skeptics really.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  Right. I don’t see why human-level AI is the criteria for AGI. I think we can have weak AGI, potentially long before we have strong AGI. We need clear benchmarks, otherwise it turns into theology.

bootsmann 4y ago

Because at the end of the day its still a bunch of linear algebra optimized to predict the next “word” that would fit into a sentence. This is very evident because you can convince it of anything because it desperately needs the conversation to make sense.

dr_dshiv 4y ago
And why would mathematics not be a road to intelligence?

Aperocky 4y ago

Because general intelligence don't arise from statistical analysis of extremely large amount of data. Think human child, or even adults. They don't know near the amount of data that ChatGPT has been trained on, yet react far better when they are put in a situation that they have never seen before.