5 ms·

The definition of super-intelligent AGI seems arbitrary. GPT-4 destroys humans on the sheer volume and breadth of knowledge that it has. You could very reasonab

The definition of super-intelligent AGI seems arbitrary. GPT-4 destroys humans on the sheer volume and breadth of knowledge that it has. You could very reasonably say that that's super-intelligent.

famouswaffles 4y ago
That's because it is and the posts keep shifting. AGI used to mean artificial and generally intelligent ( which we have passed), then it meant on par with human experts and now it seems to mean better than all experts combined. At this point why not stop the farce and replace the G in there with Godlike.
- lm28469 4y ago
  > AGI used to mean artificial and generally intelligent ( which we have passed) Which AI is generally intelligent ?
  - famouswaffles 4y ago
    By any evaluation you can carry out, GPT is generally intelligent. There is absolutely nothing narrow about GPT-4. And you see the sentiment in recent research. Look at what they're being called even with the skirting around the AGI word. General Purpose Technologies (From the Jobs Paper), General Artificial Intelligence ( from the creativity paper). Look at the second bit, they just switched the words lol.
    - lm28469 4y ago
      > GPT is generally intelligent. Besides the fact that it has literally no idea of the meaning of what it writes ?
      - famouswaffles 4y ago
        Seems to be doing doing a better job than you giving your reading comprehension. If you have anything to say other than "it's not real understanding!...just because", I'd be happy to hear it.
        lm28469 4y ago
        Feel free to enlighten me! I'd be happy to hear how an llm understand things it's not made to understand I've been reading all I can find online about llms and no one besides reddit tech bros defend that they have "understanding" or know anything about "meaning", quite the contrary actually Anyone who use these tools knows it for a fact, it's very easy to make them fail in a way that absolutely proves without any shadow of a doubt that they don't have these capabilities Here is a good article with experts opinions and sources: https://jeremyhadfield.com/why-llms-will-not-understand-language/ https://jeremyhadfield.com/why-llms-will-not-understand-lang... It's just one, you'll find dozens, all going in the same direction Nice knee jerk reaction btw
      - computerex 4y ago
        That's hard to prove one way or the other. Watch Ilyas' latest talk where he talks about how next token prediction is a much more fundamental problem than people give it credit for. Empirically you can easily see that gpt-4 has a world model and that it does abstract logical reasoning. Maybe it's a vastly different intelligence than our own but the fact remains that it can perform well on an extremely broad range of multidisciplinary tasks. You can argue the epistemology of this all day. But as a pragmatic programmer, gpt-4 does certainly seem to fall into the "AGI" category.
        lm28469 4y ago
        > gpt-4 does certainly seem to fall into the "AGI" category. Why does openai themselves and basically any expert in the fields says otherwise then ? The only people who say so are not in the field and most of them aren't even in tech. Being tricked by the machine on a subset of tasks isn't a proof of agi, it's much much broader than that
    - lm28469 4y ago
      The fact that the people who made the damn thing tell otherwise is a good indicator to me, they surely know better than you and me, Sam Altman himself said it's no AGI Even Microsoft stays very prudent and only talks about "sparks of agi" with "many limitations"

The definition of super-intelligent AGI seems arbitrary. GPT-4 destroys humans on the sheer volume and breadth of knowledge that it has. You could very reasonably say that that's super-intelligent.

famouswaffles 4y ago

That's because it is and the posts keep shifting. AGI used to mean artificial and generally intelligent ( which we have passed), then it meant on par with human experts and now it seems to mean better than all experts combined. At this point why not stop the farce and replace the G in there with Godlike.

lm28469 4y ago
> AGI used to mean artificial and generally intelligent ( which we have passed) Which AI is generally intelligent ?
- famouswaffles 4y ago
  By any evaluation you can carry out, GPT is generally intelligent. There is absolutely nothing narrow about GPT-4. And you see the sentiment in recent research. Look at what they're being called even with the skirting around the AGI word. General Purpose Technologies (From the Jobs Paper), General Artificial Intelligence ( from the creativity paper). Look at the second bit, they just switched the words lol.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > GPT is generally intelligent. Besides the fact that it has literally no idea of the meaning of what it writes ?
    - famouswaffles 4y ago
      Seems to be doing doing a better job than you giving your reading comprehension. If you have anything to say other than "it's not real understanding!...just because", I'd be happy to hear it.
      - lm28469 4y ago
        Feel free to enlighten me! I'd be happy to hear how an llm understand things it's not made to understand I've been reading all I can find online about llms and no one besides reddit tech bros defend that they have "understanding" or know anything about "meaning", quite the contrary actually Anyone who use these tools knows it for a fact, it's very easy to make them fail in a way that absolutely proves without any shadow of a doubt that they don't have these capabilities Here is a good article with experts opinions and sources: https://jeremyhadfield.com/why-llms-will-not-understand-language/ https://jeremyhadfield.com/why-llms-will-not-understand-lang... It's just one, you'll find dozens, all going in the same direction Nice knee jerk reaction btw
    - computerex 4y ago
      That's hard to prove one way or the other. Watch Ilyas' latest talk where he talks about how next token prediction is a much more fundamental problem than people give it credit for. Empirically you can easily see that gpt-4 has a world model and that it does abstract logical reasoning. Maybe it's a vastly different intelligence than our own but the fact remains that it can perform well on an extremely broad range of multidisciplinary tasks. You can argue the epistemology of this all day. But as a pragmatic programmer, gpt-4 does certainly seem to fall into the "AGI" category.
      - lm28469 4y ago
        > gpt-4 does certainly seem to fall into the "AGI" category. Why does openai themselves and basically any expert in the fields says otherwise then ? The only people who say so are not in the field and most of them aren't even in tech. Being tricked by the machine on a subset of tasks isn't a proof of agi, it's much much broader than that
  - lm28469 4y ago
    The fact that the people who made the damn thing tell otherwise is a good indicator to me, they surely know better than you and me, Sam Altman himself said it's no AGI Even Microsoft stays very prudent and only talks about "sparks of agi" with "many limitations"