4 ms·
no evidence? none? Google Lambda and Bing/Sydney are not at least incrementally closer to evidence?
by swyx 4y ago
no evidence? none? Google Lambda and Bing/Sydney are not at least incrementally closer to evidence?
- bonzini 4y agoThat's not AGI. An AGI would be able to tell you they don't know things, ask for clarification as to why you think they're wrong, etc. ChatGPT just spouts out a different wild guess when you tell it it's wrong, but doesn't learn from its mistake—not even within a single chat. Sydney just goes full psychopath.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y agoThat's not AGI. AGI would be able to write its own code, and improve it exponentially.
- nradov 4y agoThat's a big assumption. No one has built an AGI yet so we don't know whether an AGI would be capable of improving it's own code exponentially. Any exponential growth function quickly runs into hard physical limits.
- AstralStorm 4y agoNot necessarily, much like every human does not know pharmacology, genetics, robotics or other specialties that could be used for self improvement. Including social engineering and programming. What you're describing is a particular kind of superintelligence, recursively improving kind. Between that and general intelligence is another gap.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y agoHumanity as a whole can improve itself indefinitely, there is little doubt about that. For robots, there is no distinction between a single robot and robotuity, as software can be replicated cheaply and quickly.
- CuriouslyC 4y agoWe're generally intelligent but we can't consciously rewire our brains.
- pnut 4y agoWe sort of can, through meditation, habit, study, and chemical alteration - obviously within constraints, barring future technological enhancements.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y agoWe can, this process is called "learning".
- CuriouslyC 4y agoPractice and study are conscious behaviors. Learning is not.
- hgsgm 4y agoThat's Super Intelligent AGI, not merely AGI.
- mcguire 4y agoNone of the existing models of what we call 'general intelligence' are capable of improving themselves exponentially.
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago> Google Lambda and Bing/Sydney are not at least incrementally closer to evidence? No, in the same way that boiling water in a kettle is not incrementally closer to inventing the fuel for a rocket ship. You can, in hidsight do a linear connection of water boiling -> steam engine -> fuel engine -> aeronautics -> space travel But the first time someone boiled water, if you said that got you closer to being on the moon I think you would be mad. There is a non trivial chance that all our current work in AI is functionally useless in terms of creating AGI, it might take a complete breakthrough in ML, tech not invented yet, or it might not be possible at all.
- SturgeonsLaw 4y agoExcept, in your example, boiling water did get us closer to the moon :)
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y agoYep, and there was a much mre promissing science on checking Ether, and the magical qualities of gravity defying physics. Who is to say that our current ML models are not Ether studies and utterly useless. If we crack AGI in 10 years, maybe our current models are the fuel engine. But if they are not even close, we might be boiling water. Or perhaps be wrong all together, thats why I said your observation of us getting closer thanks to those proyects is not right, at least not yet.
- CuriouslyC 4y agoWe have lots of examples of generally intelligent systems, they're common and they evolve by themselves, so the idea that it might not be possible at all just seems ridiculous. Large language models might not be capable of general intelligence by themselves, but a model network that includes a LLM as part of a generalized game playing model would certainly have the potential to get there.
- RandomLensman 4y agoI think it is fair to say that "not at all possible" is perhaps too strong. On the potential of certain approaches I am less certain we have or know what we need. But we also have examples of things all around us we cannot make ourselves (e.g., a simple animal or lifeform from scratch).