7 ms·

According to the Latex source, one of the original titles for this paper was "First Contact With an AGI System".

• armchairhacker 4y ago
  What makes GPT4 AGI that makes GPT3.5 not AGI? And what makes GPT3.5 AGI that makes GPT3 not AGI? And what makes GPT3 AGI that makes GPT2/smaller models not AGI? What is the "hard line" that makes something AGI or not AGI? Because IMO it looks like GPT4 is somewhat AGI, but also the older models possibly all the way down to even Markov chains: it's just that this AGI is nowhere near human-level.
  • politician 4y ago
    It’s a great title for a paper, so they’re probably saving it.
  • beambot 4y ago
    What marks the hard line for "intelligent"? It's largely philosophical. Is a human? Dolphin? Mouse? Cockroach? Tree?
    • esjeon 4y ago
      The inability to fully define a thing doesn't invalidate all attempts to set its outline. At least, it's easy to conclude that an intelligent being has to be able to reliably perform basic reasoning (given all the necessary information is properly acquired). The current GPT models all fail at this, and neither the token length nor the network size can fix this.
      • beambot 4y ago
        What do you mean by "reliably perform basic reasoning"?
    • Thorentis 4y ago
      Abstraction and reflection have been posited in the past as pre-requisties for intelligence. "I am the thinker that is thinking." How do we prove whether an AI has this capability or not? I'd say it's nearly impossible. However, I think we can certainly prove when it doesn't. For instance, the fact we need an external plugin to get the model itself to return text claiming 1+1=2, tells me that GPT4 cannot reason about numbers in the abstract, and therefore lacks abstraction ability.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • estsauver 4y ago
        That's a rather interesting line to me, as someone with a young child, they cannot perform that abstract reasoning on mathematics either. At the same time, I feel extremely confident they're a thinking and intelligent being. I think we're so strongly biased against a deeply uncomfortable reality that there may not be a hard line, we don't even want to consider the alternative.
        • msm_ 4y ago
          That heuristics also rules out every animal that doesn't pass the mirror test, and I'm pretty sure rats and dogs are thinking and intelligent.
      • chaxor 4y ago
        Models have trouble with discrete spaces often, partly because of the internal continuous space representations, but also in this context because the transition from the probabilities in natural language to mathematics may not be as stark as it should be. But to make matters worse, or more muddied, 1+1=1 can be a valid mathematical statement. It simply depends upon the set and group you have, or if you're doing modular arithmetic, etc. Sometimes you're given a unital magma. So, there's still a heavy dependency on context for the problem setup, but the underlying discrete and deterministic rules that are applied to the context is less malleable than other context switches in NLP LLMs do well in (such as language styling).
  • mirker 4y ago
    I’d say that any technical limitation that doesn’t apply to humans is not AGI. Context windows are the most apparent ones; humans don’t have a stroke after reading N characters.
    • SanderNL 4y ago
      AGI is not human intelligence. Cats are generally intelligent for example. A cat level AGI is worth billions. Humans certainly have context windows. Try asking your CEO about some lines of code in your work. Humans have a fairly large one, I give you that and it is fuzzy.
  • singularity2001 4y ago
    there is no hard line but gpt4 solves some tests 90% correctly where 3.5 only achieved 10%
  • pmontra 4y ago
    We don't exactly know what intelligence means and if we are always intelligent. An example about ping pong players. The pace of their movements is too fast for conscious thinking, so it's all trained reflexes with some overall strategic planning trying to keep up with events. There is no time to think about anything. Is intelligence suspended there, at least the general one? Then the same person stops playing and gives an interview about the game and full general intelligence turns on again.
  • dankai 4y ago
    The multi-modality of the model.
  • d0mine 4y ago
    > What makes AGI? Human level performance on general tasks (you can't be just good in 90%, you should avoid being terrible in the remaining 10%). Though LLMs don't need to be AGI, to have a catastrophic economic impact.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• ummonk 4y ago
  That would explain why GPT found the paper sarcastic…
• m3kw9 4y ago
  As good Gpt seem to be, isn’t this a low bar for AGI?
  • moffkalast 4y ago
    Well if it walks kind of like a duck, and quacks almost like a duck.. it may be a prototype robotic duck but it's still a duck. It's pretty intelligent and rather general too, so at least by the definition that doesn't include mandatory consciousness it would mostly fit. And consciousness is pointless for a robotic system because it doesn't add anything practically useful. Just because agency has to be provided by the user doesn't make it any less of an AGI I'd say.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• precompute 4y ago
  OpenAI's Marketing department taking a L when they realize the hyperbole is a tad too strong this time