5 ms·

If the litmus test for intelligence is the ability to “create new math” most people on earth wouldn’t be considered intelligent

dvt 4y ago
> If the litmus test for intelligence Moving goal posts around is unhelpful. I think my comment was pretty clear in the context of AGI and calling ChatGPT a "math genius."
- famouswaffles 4y ago
  The fact that people take agi to mean "can invent new math" is a goalpost shift on its own. That was not the original meaning (generally intelligent), that wasn't even the next moved goal (on par with human experts). I guess the next one counts (better than all human experts) but i'm sure we'll move that again too.
  - akiselev 4y ago
    The problem was always underspecified. We don’t have a quantifiable metric for intelligence except IQ tests, benchmark datasets like those used to evaluate different LLMs, and other similarly myopic bullshit. “We’ll know it when we see it” becomes the default. In reality, the goal posts aren’t being moved, we’re just finding out how much further we are from them than we thought. ChatGPT is a "stochastic parrot" that’s seems way “smarter” than anyone thought possible so we have to reevaluate what we consider evidence of intelligence, perhaps coming to terms with the fact that we aren’t that smart the most of the time.
    - famouswaffles 4y ago
      Sorry but nope. GPT-4 is plenty intelligent. I've begun to question the intelligence of anyone that reduces it to "stochastic parrot" because they're not even arguing against results but arbitrary lines drawn on sand. The "We'll see it when it comes" line is just utterly wrong, If there's one thing experts seem to agree on is that not everyone will agree when current definition of agi does arrive. The philosophical zombie is an excellent example of the extent of post shifting we're capable of. Even when a theoretical system that does every single thing right comes, we're looking for a way to discredit it. To put it below what we of course only have. lots of researchers now aren't questioning GPT's general intelligence. That's how you end up with papers alluding to this technology with amusing names like General purpose technologies(from the jobs paper) or even funnier - General artificial intelligence (from the creativity paper). You know what the original title of the microsoft paper was? "First contact with an agi system". and maybe it's just me but reading it, i got the sense they thought it too.
      - vintermann 4y ago
        > The philosophical zombie is an excellent example of the extent of post shifting we're capable of. I was with you until here. That has nothing to do with this. That argument is about separating intelligence from having a subjective experience, not moving goalposts for intelligence.
        famouswaffles 4y ago
        It's a tangential relation but it's a relation. I don't think i would say it has nothing to do with it. Goal posts shifting in the field of machine learning isn't just about the posts for defining intelligence. It's broader and deeper than that. I brought it up because i thought it fit the point i was driving at. Humans/people don't see subjective experience. I don't know that you're actually having some subjective experience. I'm working on what i see and results, same as you. If you have two unknown equations but one condition - these 2 equations return the same output with the same input. well, then any mathematician would tell you the obvious - the 2 equations are equal or equivalent. it doesn't actually matter what they look like. This is just an illustration. The point i'm driving at here is that true distinction shows in results. It's a concept that's pretty easy to understand. Yet turn to artificial intelligence and it just seems to break down. People making weird assertions all over the place not because they have been warranted in any empirical, qualitative or quantitative manner but because there seems to be this inability to engage with results...like we do with each other. when i show the output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand, the arguments quickly shift to "it's not real understanding!" and it's honestly very bizarre. What kind of meaningful distinction can't show itself, can't be tested for ? If it does exist then it's not meaningful. I think that the same reason people shift posts for intelligence is the same reason people fear the philosophical zombie. idk maybe i'm rambling at this point but just my thoughts.
        YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
        >> when i show the output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand, the arguments quickly shift to "it's not real understanding!" and it's honestly very bizarre. What kind of meaningful distinction can't show itself, can't be tested for? If it does exist then it's not meaningful. I agree with you totally. Here's some output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understanding: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. I just copy-pasted that from wikipedia. Copy/paste understands syllogisms! Explain that!
  - lukeschlather 4y ago
    > The fact that people take agi to mean "can invent new math" is a goalpost shift on its own. I don't think this is a goalpost shift at all. I agree that GPT actually is "generally intelligent" but then so is Google Search. The point of the term AGI is that it has generally applicable intelligence that is on par with a human, I don't think that's really changed. The problem with GPT is still that every single interaction I've had with it, I've pointed out issues with its logic and it is incapable of understanding my objection. It agrees with whatever I say and then immediately repeats the same mistake. And these aren't "invent new math" questions, there's a very clear inability to follow a logical chain of cause and effect. I should be clear at the same time I still have a feeling ChatGPT might be conscious. It's obviously kind of a dreamlike consciousness without ability to hold state but it does feel like it could be conscious.
    - tanseydavid 4y ago
      >> is that it has generally applicable intelligence that is on par with a human Which human or humans? I freely admit that I do not posses the intelligence to "invent new math" but I am pretty sure that I am "smarter than the average bear" (to borrow a phrase).
- eternalban 4y ago
  Will you settle for whiz? Interesting q for us to consider is how do we come up with "new ideas". I think we can consider play (in the abstract sense) to be a significant element of the process. Play is a pleasurable self-motivated activity. I am certain an AGI (if such a thing exists) will need to be playful.
  - dvt 4y ago
    Totally agree. Recently read Finite and Infinite Games[1] and The Grasshopper: Life, Games, and Utopia[2] and I'm more or less convinced motivations are always essentially games. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713 https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Grasshopper-Third-Games-Life-Utopia/dp/1554812151 https://www.amazon.com/Grasshopper-Third-Games-Life-Utopia/d...
    - eternalban 4y ago
      Thanks for book refs. Would you recommend any of them for a bright teen? [1] sounded like a good candidate.
      - dvt 4y ago
        Yep, they're both super approachable, [1] is a great way to get introduced to some deep philosophy in a fun way.
      - bathMarm0t 4y ago
        [1] is an exceptional book for a bright teen, especially so if you suspect the teen leans into their intelligence/abilities to gauge their self worth (I don't know a single person, let alone teen who doesn't do this). The book's main theme states that being a good player has nothing to do with skill, but rather with the ability to create playful environments that encourage growth, humility, and most importantly, more play.
jadbox 4y ago
This is a fair response, but in the author's defense, he might be trying to imply that intelligence is something that should be at least "capable" of creating new origin ideas and concepts. Of course, we can then debate what does it mean to be capable of original new ideas? (or what it means to be original)
chasd00 4y ago
that reminds me of this scene in irobot spooner> You are a clever imitation of life... Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot take a blank canvas and turn it into a masterpiece? sonny> Can you? edit: i just realized OpenAI can answer both of those questions with "yes." ...
- Baeocystin 4y ago
  It's a fantastic scene. The childlike earnestness of Sonny asking completely deflates Spooner's rant.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

dvt 4y ago

> If the litmus test for intelligence Moving goal posts around is unhelpful. I think my comment was pretty clear in the context of AGI and calling ChatGPT a "math genius."

famouswaffles 4y ago
The fact that people take agi to mean "can invent new math" is a goalpost shift on its own. That was not the original meaning (generally intelligent), that wasn't even the next moved goal (on par with human experts). I guess the next one counts (better than all human experts) but i'm sure we'll move that again too.
- akiselev 4y ago
  The problem was always underspecified. We don’t have a quantifiable metric for intelligence except IQ tests, benchmark datasets like those used to evaluate different LLMs, and other similarly myopic bullshit. “We’ll know it when we see it” becomes the default. In reality, the goal posts aren’t being moved, we’re just finding out how much further we are from them than we thought. ChatGPT is a "stochastic parrot" that’s seems way “smarter” than anyone thought possible so we have to reevaluate what we consider evidence of intelligence, perhaps coming to terms with the fact that we aren’t that smart the most of the time.
  - famouswaffles 4y ago
    Sorry but nope. GPT-4 is plenty intelligent. I've begun to question the intelligence of anyone that reduces it to "stochastic parrot" because they're not even arguing against results but arbitrary lines drawn on sand. The "We'll see it when it comes" line is just utterly wrong, If there's one thing experts seem to agree on is that not everyone will agree when current definition of agi does arrive. The philosophical zombie is an excellent example of the extent of post shifting we're capable of. Even when a theoretical system that does every single thing right comes, we're looking for a way to discredit it. To put it below what we of course only have. lots of researchers now aren't questioning GPT's general intelligence. That's how you end up with papers alluding to this technology with amusing names like General purpose technologies(from the jobs paper) or even funnier - General artificial intelligence (from the creativity paper). You know what the original title of the microsoft paper was? "First contact with an agi system". and maybe it's just me but reading it, i got the sense they thought it too.
    - vintermann 4y ago
      > The philosophical zombie is an excellent example of the extent of post shifting we're capable of. I was with you until here. That has nothing to do with this. That argument is about separating intelligence from having a subjective experience, not moving goalposts for intelligence.
      - famouswaffles 4y ago
        It's a tangential relation but it's a relation. I don't think i would say it has nothing to do with it. Goal posts shifting in the field of machine learning isn't just about the posts for defining intelligence. It's broader and deeper than that. I brought it up because i thought it fit the point i was driving at. Humans/people don't see subjective experience. I don't know that you're actually having some subjective experience. I'm working on what i see and results, same as you. If you have two unknown equations but one condition - these 2 equations return the same output with the same input. well, then any mathematician would tell you the obvious - the 2 equations are equal or equivalent. it doesn't actually matter what they look like. This is just an illustration. The point i'm driving at here is that true distinction shows in results. It's a concept that's pretty easy to understand. Yet turn to artificial intelligence and it just seems to break down. People making weird assertions all over the place not because they have been warranted in any empirical, qualitative or quantitative manner but because there seems to be this inability to engage with results...like we do with each other. when i show the output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand, the arguments quickly shift to "it's not real understanding!" and it's honestly very bizarre. What kind of meaningful distinction can't show itself, can't be tested for ? If it does exist then it's not meaningful. I think that the same reason people shift posts for intelligence is the same reason people fear the philosophical zombie. idk maybe i'm rambling at this point but just my thoughts.
        YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
        >> when i show the output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand, the arguments quickly shift to "it's not real understanding!" and it's honestly very bizarre. What kind of meaningful distinction can't show itself, can't be tested for? If it does exist then it's not meaningful. I agree with you totally. Here's some output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understanding: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. I just copy-pasted that from wikipedia. Copy/paste understands syllogisms! Explain that!
- lukeschlather 4y ago
  > The fact that people take agi to mean "can invent new math" is a goalpost shift on its own. I don't think this is a goalpost shift at all. I agree that GPT actually is "generally intelligent" but then so is Google Search. The point of the term AGI is that it has generally applicable intelligence that is on par with a human, I don't think that's really changed. The problem with GPT is still that every single interaction I've had with it, I've pointed out issues with its logic and it is incapable of understanding my objection. It agrees with whatever I say and then immediately repeats the same mistake. And these aren't "invent new math" questions, there's a very clear inability to follow a logical chain of cause and effect. I should be clear at the same time I still have a feeling ChatGPT might be conscious. It's obviously kind of a dreamlike consciousness without ability to hold state but it does feel like it could be conscious.
  - tanseydavid 4y ago
    >> is that it has generally applicable intelligence that is on par with a human Which human or humans? I freely admit that I do not posses the intelligence to "invent new math" but I am pretty sure that I am "smarter than the average bear" (to borrow a phrase).
eternalban 4y ago
Will you settle for whiz? Interesting q for us to consider is how do we come up with "new ideas". I think we can consider play (in the abstract sense) to be a significant element of the process. Play is a pleasurable self-motivated activity. I am certain an AGI (if such a thing exists) will need to be playful.
- dvt 4y ago
  Totally agree. Recently read Finite and Infinite Games[1] and The Grasshopper: Life, Games, and Utopia[2] and I'm more or less convinced motivations are always essentially games. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713 https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Grasshopper-Third-Games-Life-Utopia/dp/1554812151 https://www.amazon.com/Grasshopper-Third-Games-Life-Utopia/d...
  - eternalban 4y ago
    Thanks for book refs. Would you recommend any of them for a bright teen? [1] sounded like a good candidate.
    - dvt 4y ago
      Yep, they're both super approachable, [1] is a great way to get introduced to some deep philosophy in a fun way.
    - bathMarm0t 4y ago
      [1] is an exceptional book for a bright teen, especially so if you suspect the teen leans into their intelligence/abilities to gauge their self worth (I don't know a single person, let alone teen who doesn't do this). The book's main theme states that being a good player has nothing to do with skill, but rather with the ability to create playful environments that encourage growth, humility, and most importantly, more play.

jadbox 4y ago

This is a fair response, but in the author's defense, he might be trying to imply that intelligence is something that should be at least "capable" of creating new origin ideas and concepts. Of course, we can then debate what does it mean to be capable of original new ideas? (or what it means to be original)

chasd00 4y ago

that reminds me of this scene in irobot spooner> You are a clever imitation of life... Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot take a blank canvas and turn it into a masterpiece? sonny> Can you? edit: i just realized OpenAI can answer both of those questions with "yes." ...

Baeocystin 4y ago
It's a fantastic scene. The childlike earnestness of Sonny asking completely deflates Spooner's rant.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]