3 ms·

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 That and come up with better tests to replace the now outdated Turing test.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.

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.