27 ms·

So a "regular" AI is one trained to perform a specific task - like recognizing dogs in an image or handwriting recognition. These LLMs are trained for one skil

So a "regular" AI is one trained to perform a specific task - like recognizing dogs in an image or handwriting recognition. These LLMs are trained for one skill: given the previous N tokens, what's the next token. From this single skill, they can generalize to many many many many useful use-cases. Is that general enough? Or do we need to wait for the goalposts to move again and then blow past that limit too? Stop arguing semantics and start building cool shit.

catoc 4y ago
It's not semantics, but building cool shit I like :-)
misnome 4y ago
Goalpost moving? Since when was this the goalpost of… AGI.
- lordfrito 4y ago
  I think it's more about the goalposts "coming into view more clearly" as we get closer to what we thought AGI was going to be. There's no question that ChatGPT could pass the Turing test (assuming it's told to try and to not to say it's a computer). So, from one standpoint we've made it. But I'm in the camp that says this really isn't the AGI I thought we were going to get. Semantics matter now, and we need better definitions of what we're trying to do now. I believe an important part of the AGI problem has been solved (or is at least downhill from here). What to do about the other parts? Let's better define what we do and don't have. That and come up with better tests to replace the now outdated Turing test.
  - cheeselip420 4y ago
    Yeah this is a valuable point - AGI just isn't specific enough. ChatGPT is, an artificial generalized intelligence. But is that a useful label? I imagine we'll be needing to find a way to better define and quantify intelligence (which has been a vexing issue for a long time)
  - famouswaffles 4y ago
    No it's definitely moving. Somehow general intelligence has morphed into essentially super intelligence where the AI is expected to outperform every human expert at every task before people will call it AGI. Which is just ridiculous. The bar for AGI has been set so high by some that a significant percentage of the human population would fail. That's when you know things are out of hand. This isn't the only erroneous bar either. Somehow, the synonymity to human intelligence is taking very weird importance. We have people inventing their imaginary/magical definitions of reasoning and understanding (that they can't test for) just so LLMs won't qualify. GPT-4 is absolutely a general intelligence.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    "this really isn't the AGI I thought we were going to get" This is the only possible outcome. Or at least from my interpretation is that science fiction has jaded us with the thinking that AI will be anything like a person at all. The human mind is a particular set of filters controlled by our wetware input devices and a somewhat narrow survivability window. The software we're building has a completely different set of 'mind' conditions so it's a mathematical certainty we're going to build mind that works very different from ours. As you say we need better sets of definitions on what general intelligence even means. For example, what are the limits of human intelligence to ensure we're not missing broad categories of potential intelligence when testing AIs.
famouswaffles 4y ago
Yup. LLMs are obviously general intelligences. AGI is just a loaded term with posts constantly shifting.
wizofaus 4y ago
I don't know about GPT-4 but it's very easy to find cases where v3 is incapable of the generalized sort of mathemathical and logic problem solving that humans manage fairly easily, and on that basis alone it didn't classify as an AGI for me. If that can be addressed purely via LLM-technology I'll be impressed (and pretty surprised).
- z3c0 4y ago
  The big detractor for me is its heavy curation towards predetermined outputs that are constantly being tuned by a small army, essentially making it a Mechanical Turk paired with a nifty model. They can spin it as "trying to improve its usability", but it looks more like "trying to mask its unusability" to me. It's the world's most heavily invested-in parlor trick, and anybody who drops it into a situation of higher stakes will find that out quickly. The GPT-4 paper even warns about this: Most importantly, it still is not fully reliable (it “hallucinates” facts and makes reasoning errors). Great care should be taken when using language model outputs, particularly in high-stakes contexts, with the exact protocol (such as human review, grounding with additional context, or avoiding high-stakes uses altogether) matching the needs of specific applications. Whenever they create a model than can achieve the same outputs without the heavy curation and deliberate bias on certain subjects (like condescending people for asking where to find cigarettes), then I'll be impressed.
- pixl97 4y ago
  And at the same time it's solving lots of problems that computers have never been able to solve in the past. I'm glad it's not AGI because we'd have much bigger problems, but for a 'language' model it does have interesting methods of rationality, and when put in a verbose mode it seems to do much better. I've not had time to play around and get the interface to see if it can self correct statements it makes like this on first shot. Me: Hello, I am asking you a logic question. Please explain what "it" is in the following sentence Me: "The X doesn't fit in the Y because it is too small" G4: In the sentence "The X doesn't fit in the Y because it is too small," the pronoun "it" refers to "X." The sentence is stating that "X" cannot fit inside "Y" due to its size being too small. Me: "This is incorrect, please give step by step logic on why you came to this conclusion" G4: Apologies for the confusion. I will provide a step-by-step logic for my interpretation: The sentence is: "The X doesn't fit in the Y because it is too small." We need to identify what "it" refers to in the sentence. There are two nouns in the sentence: X and Y. The sentence structure is such that the reason for X not fitting in Y is provided after the word "because." The sentence states that something is "too small," which is the reason for the lack of fit. Since the reason for the lack of fit is being given, we can infer that the pronoun "it" should be referring to one of the two nouns. However, upon closer examination, my previous interpretation was incorrect. Revisiting the analysis, the correct interpretation should be as follows: In the sentence "The X doesn't fit in the Y because it is too small," the pronoun "it" actually refers to "Y." The sentence is stating that "X" cannot fit inside "Y" because "Y" is too small to accommodate "X." My initial interpretation was wrong because I didn't consider that "it" could refer to "Y" and that the sentence is explaining why "X" cannot fit in "Y."

catoc 4y ago

It's not semantics, but building cool shit I like :-)

misnome 4y ago

Goalpost moving? Since when was this the goalpost of… AGI.

lordfrito 4y ago
I think it's more about the goalposts "coming into view more clearly" as we get closer to what we thought AGI was going to be. There's no question that ChatGPT could pass the Turing test (assuming it's told to try and to not to say it's a computer). So, from one standpoint we've made it. But I'm in the camp that says this really isn't the AGI I thought we were going to get. Semantics matter now, and we need better definitions of what we're trying to do now. I believe an important part of the AGI problem has been solved (or is at least downhill from here). What to do about the other parts? Let's better define what we do and don't have. That and come up with better tests to replace the now outdated Turing test.
- cheeselip420 4y ago
  Yeah this is a valuable point - AGI just isn't specific enough. ChatGPT is, an artificial generalized intelligence. But is that a useful label? I imagine we'll be needing to find a way to better define and quantify intelligence (which has been a vexing issue for a long time)
- famouswaffles 4y ago
  No it's definitely moving. Somehow general intelligence has morphed into essentially super intelligence where the AI is expected to outperform every human expert at every task before people will call it AGI. Which is just ridiculous. The bar for AGI has been set so high by some that a significant percentage of the human population would fail. That's when you know things are out of hand. This isn't the only erroneous bar either. Somehow, the synonymity to human intelligence is taking very weird importance. We have people inventing their imaginary/magical definitions of reasoning and understanding (that they can't test for) just so LLMs won't qualify. GPT-4 is absolutely a general intelligence.
- pixl97 4y ago
  "this really isn't the AGI I thought we were going to get" This is the only possible outcome. Or at least from my interpretation is that science fiction has jaded us with the thinking that AI will be anything like a person at all. The human mind is a particular set of filters controlled by our wetware input devices and a somewhat narrow survivability window. The software we're building has a completely different set of 'mind' conditions so it's a mathematical certainty we're going to build mind that works very different from ours. As you say we need better sets of definitions on what general intelligence even means. For example, what are the limits of human intelligence to ensure we're not missing broad categories of potential intelligence when testing AIs.

famouswaffles 4y ago

Yup. LLMs are obviously general intelligences. AGI is just a loaded term with posts constantly shifting.

wizofaus 4y ago

I don't know about GPT-4 but it's very easy to find cases where v3 is incapable of the generalized sort of mathemathical and logic problem solving that humans manage fairly easily, and on that basis alone it didn't classify as an AGI for me. If that can be addressed purely via LLM-technology I'll be impressed (and pretty surprised).

z3c0 4y ago
The big detractor for me is its heavy curation towards predetermined outputs that are constantly being tuned by a small army, essentially making it a Mechanical Turk paired with a nifty model. They can spin it as "trying to improve its usability", but it looks more like "trying to mask its unusability" to me. It's the world's most heavily invested-in parlor trick, and anybody who drops it into a situation of higher stakes will find that out quickly. The GPT-4 paper even warns about this: Most importantly, it still is not fully reliable (it “hallucinates” facts and makes reasoning errors). Great care should be taken when using language model outputs, particularly in high-stakes contexts, with the exact protocol (such as human review, grounding with additional context, or avoiding high-stakes uses altogether) matching the needs of specific applications. Whenever they create a model than can achieve the same outputs without the heavy curation and deliberate bias on certain subjects (like condescending people for asking where to find cigarettes), then I'll be impressed.
pixl97 4y ago
And at the same time it's solving lots of problems that computers have never been able to solve in the past. I'm glad it's not AGI because we'd have much bigger problems, but for a 'language' model it does have interesting methods of rationality, and when put in a verbose mode it seems to do much better. I've not had time to play around and get the interface to see if it can self correct statements it makes like this on first shot. Me: Hello, I am asking you a logic question. Please explain what "it" is in the following sentence Me: "The X doesn't fit in the Y because it is too small" G4: In the sentence "The X doesn't fit in the Y because it is too small," the pronoun "it" refers to "X." The sentence is stating that "X" cannot fit inside "Y" due to its size being too small. Me: "This is incorrect, please give step by step logic on why you came to this conclusion" G4: Apologies for the confusion. I will provide a step-by-step logic for my interpretation: The sentence is: "The X doesn't fit in the Y because it is too small." We need to identify what "it" refers to in the sentence. There are two nouns in the sentence: X and Y. The sentence structure is such that the reason for X not fitting in Y is provided after the word "because." The sentence states that something is "too small," which is the reason for the lack of fit. Since the reason for the lack of fit is being given, we can infer that the pronoun "it" should be referring to one of the two nouns. However, upon closer examination, my previous interpretation was incorrect. Revisiting the analysis, the correct interpretation should be as follows: In the sentence "The X doesn't fit in the Y because it is too small," the pronoun "it" actually refers to "Y." The sentence is stating that "X" cannot fit inside "Y" because "Y" is too small to accommodate "X." My initial interpretation was wrong because I didn't consider that "it" could refer to "Y" and that the sentence is explaining why "X" cannot fit in "Y."