4 ms·

What does the word "super" mean to you? In some ways, GPT4 is already superintelligent. So is ChatGPT 3.5. Do you know anyone who can translate natural language

by ilaksh 4y ago

What does the word "super" mean to you? In some ways, GPT4 is already superintelligent. So is ChatGPT 3.5. Do you know anyone who can translate natural language to code as fast as GPT 3.5, or, given a few paragraphs of reference text, perfectly tutor a child on any subject under the sun at a moment's notice like GPT4 is doing for Khan Academy? How many artists do you know who can produce almost any style of artwork with any subject matter within 15 seconds?

Tuna-Fish 4y ago
Being superhuman at producing art is not existentially threatening. Being superhuman about convincing people or writing code would be.
- karp773 4y ago
  Wait until AI learns to generate propaganda memes and share them on social media.
- flangola7 4y ago
  >Being superhuman about convincing people I don't think there's much public info available on it, but Facebook built an AI that plays very competitively in a strategy game built on negotiation and manipulation.
  - RugnirViking 4y ago
    they kinda sorta cheated imo, I watch a lot of top-level diplomacy gameplay and listen to analysis, and the facebook ai was in a blind version with only a minute or so between phases, leaving hardly any time for actual negotiation. It also made use of a lot of human shorthand move codes built for these blind blitz games to simplify it's communication. The mode it played also had some other changes like removing the winter build phase as a time for negotiating. The "normal" version of the game has multiple days between phases, and people write many paragraphs to one another. It's still pretty cool, but its not like it just convinced people using raw charisma. Yet.
    - MacsHeadroom 4y ago
      Well it's a good thing we don't have countless examples of these things getting 10x better every year. /s On a serious note, thanks for the analysis, as someone who knows next to nothing about competitive diplomacy.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sinuhe69 4y ago
If like that, computers are super-human long ago with their calculation capacity or memory or retrieval speed.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  Yes they can be super human at X. What people fear is something that is generally superhuman.
VirusNewbie 4y ago
But there are plenty of intellectual things it cannot do, that I can.
- oezi 4y ago
  Since it can do pretty much everything which can be expressed as tokens (some things better than others) I would be curious where do you see a safe haven for human intelligence. I see bastions falling like sand castles recently.
  - sollewitt 4y ago
    Motive? You can fire up GPT, not issue a command, and it'll just idle there until the hardware fails. Granted that's also the one thing I hope we don't "solve" for.
    - oezi 4y ago
      It could be motivated indefinitely when you give it a single prompt (or use a while loop to continously feed it a motivating prompt) so this should be a trivial thing to overcome.
- flangola7 4y ago
  There are other animals (mammals) that have better memory than us. There are animals strongly suspected to have deeper and more sophisticated social relationships than us. We are not the apex in every intellectual ability, but the ones in which we are grant us absolute power over the future of all other lifeforms. A cognitive entity does not have to best you at all things. There are standardized education tests it may never reach above 10th percentile on, just as humans will never reach above 10th percentile in the short term memory tasks that apes are masters of. But we are the 100th percentile for tasks like industrialized destruction of them and their habitats and capturing and using them for painful medical experiments - the apes are wholly outclassed when it comes to that.
zarzavat 4y ago
Yudkowsky’s example of superintelligence is a chess computer. You can play against stockfish, but you will always lose, even if you are Magnus Carlsen. If you think you are ahead against stockfish, you are wrong. You win a rook, but it has already calculated that it wins it back 10 moves later. Stockfish is superintelligence in a very narrow domain. A superintelligent AGI is that concept applied to general intelligence. Whatever you try, it is always several steps ahead. If you ask it to write a program, and you think you found a bug, it’s not a bug, you just misunderstood the code. Anything that you can consider, it can also consider but in more depth. More speculatively superintelligent AGI implies situations such as: you try to turn it off, but you find that it has already modified its own code, found a zero day and established an outpost on another network that you don’t have access to.
- diziet 4y ago
  within some constraints it is possible to "beat" stockfish. Ie, on chess.com I think stockfish times out on bullet games. Some versions of stockfish can lose vs specific gambits, ie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5ul6b695Pw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5ul6b695Pw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtJeE0Th7rk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtJeE0Th7rk of course it is probably much less likely with more cpu times on current version of stockfish.
- bick_nyers 4y ago
  "Anything that you can consider, it can also consider but in more depth." I think it's important to note the distinction between "it can also consider" and "it did also consider". Super Intelligence is not the same as Infinite Intelligence, there are still physical limitations and time components that can still get in the way. It would be helpful to be able to quantify the speed of intelligence, and the idea surface area of a task with these systems. Meaning, how fast can the AI reason, and how many ideas are there to think about connected to a given task, and how much thinking is required for those ideas.
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    Yudkowsky makes this distinction. Stockfish is not always correct: it can be beaten by next year’s Stockfish for example. In some sense it is making mistakes all the time. It’s just that those mistakes are not accessible to us humans. It is operating in a much higher plane of understanding compared to us. A “mistake” to stockfish looks like: I searched 30 ply down but my opponent searched 35 ply down and found a superior sequence of moves. For stockfish to make the kinds of chess mistakes that humans make, it would similar to if I failed to calculate 123+123=246. It’s not that 123+123 is particularly easy on the grand scale of intelligence: animals cannot do it. But it’s completely inconceivable that I could make that kind of mistake.

by ilaksh 4y ago

Tuna-Fish 4y ago

Being superhuman at producing art is not existentially threatening. Being superhuman about convincing people or writing code would be.

karp773 4y ago
Wait until AI learns to generate propaganda memes and share them on social media.
flangola7 4y ago
>Being superhuman about convincing people I don't think there's much public info available on it, but Facebook built an AI that plays very competitively in a strategy game built on negotiation and manipulation.
- RugnirViking 4y ago
  they kinda sorta cheated imo, I watch a lot of top-level diplomacy gameplay and listen to analysis, and the facebook ai was in a blind version with only a minute or so between phases, leaving hardly any time for actual negotiation. It also made use of a lot of human shorthand move codes built for these blind blitz games to simplify it's communication. The mode it played also had some other changes like removing the winter build phase as a time for negotiating. The "normal" version of the game has multiple days between phases, and people write many paragraphs to one another. It's still pretty cool, but its not like it just convinced people using raw charisma. Yet.
  - MacsHeadroom 4y ago
    Well it's a good thing we don't have countless examples of these things getting 10x better every year. /s On a serious note, thanks for the analysis, as someone who knows next to nothing about competitive diplomacy.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sinuhe69 4y ago

If like that, computers are super-human long ago with their calculation capacity or memory or retrieval speed.

edgyquant 4y ago
Yes they can be super human at X. What people fear is something that is generally superhuman.

VirusNewbie 4y ago

But there are plenty of intellectual things it cannot do, that I can.

oezi 4y ago
Since it can do pretty much everything which can be expressed as tokens (some things better than others) I would be curious where do you see a safe haven for human intelligence. I see bastions falling like sand castles recently.
- sollewitt 4y ago
  Motive? You can fire up GPT, not issue a command, and it'll just idle there until the hardware fails. Granted that's also the one thing I hope we don't "solve" for.
  - oezi 4y ago
    It could be motivated indefinitely when you give it a single prompt (or use a while loop to continously feed it a motivating prompt) so this should be a trivial thing to overcome.
flangola7 4y ago
There are other animals (mammals) that have better memory than us. There are animals strongly suspected to have deeper and more sophisticated social relationships than us. We are not the apex in every intellectual ability, but the ones in which we are grant us absolute power over the future of all other lifeforms. A cognitive entity does not have to best you at all things. There are standardized education tests it may never reach above 10th percentile on, just as humans will never reach above 10th percentile in the short term memory tasks that apes are masters of. But we are the 100th percentile for tasks like industrialized destruction of them and their habitats and capturing and using them for painful medical experiments - the apes are wholly outclassed when it comes to that.

zarzavat 4y ago

Yudkowsky’s example of superintelligence is a chess computer. You can play against stockfish, but you will always lose, even if you are Magnus Carlsen. If you think you are ahead against stockfish, you are wrong. You win a rook, but it has already calculated that it wins it back 10 moves later. Stockfish is superintelligence in a very narrow domain. A superintelligent AGI is that concept applied to general intelligence. Whatever you try, it is always several steps ahead. If you ask it to write a program, and you think you found a bug, it’s not a bug, you just misunderstood the code. Anything that you can consider, it can also consider but in more depth. More speculatively superintelligent AGI implies situations such as: you try to turn it off, but you find that it has already modified its own code, found a zero day and established an outpost on another network that you don’t have access to.

diziet 4y ago
within some constraints it is possible to "beat" stockfish. Ie, on chess.com I think stockfish times out on bullet games. Some versions of stockfish can lose vs specific gambits, ie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5ul6b695Pw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5ul6b695Pw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtJeE0Th7rk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtJeE0Th7rk of course it is probably much less likely with more cpu times on current version of stockfish.
bick_nyers 4y ago
"Anything that you can consider, it can also consider but in more depth." I think it's important to note the distinction between "it can also consider" and "it did also consider". Super Intelligence is not the same as Infinite Intelligence, there are still physical limitations and time components that can still get in the way. It would be helpful to be able to quantify the speed of intelligence, and the idea surface area of a task with these systems. Meaning, how fast can the AI reason, and how many ideas are there to think about connected to a given task, and how much thinking is required for those ideas.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  Yudkowsky makes this distinction. Stockfish is not always correct: it can be beaten by next year’s Stockfish for example. In some sense it is making mistakes all the time. It’s just that those mistakes are not accessible to us humans. It is operating in a much higher plane of understanding compared to us. A “mistake” to stockfish looks like: I searched 30 ply down but my opponent searched 35 ply down and found a superior sequence of moves. For stockfish to make the kinds of chess mistakes that humans make, it would similar to if I failed to calculate 123+123=246. It’s not that 123+123 is particularly easy on the grand scale of intelligence: animals cannot do it. But it’s completely inconceivable that I could make that kind of mistake.