3 ms·

AGI doesn't have to imply consciousness. It can just mean superhuman performance at tasks, as GPT-4 has perhaps already reached. As AGI architectures go, LLMs s

AGI doesn't have to imply consciousness. It can just mean superhuman performance at tasks, as GPT-4 has perhaps already reached. As AGI architectures go, LLMs seem pretty good for this worry about consciousness. They were already not doing anything as long as they weren't currently being asked a question.

x86x87 4y ago
I don't know what planet you're from but for me the I in AGI stands for intelligence. Nothing today is even close to intelligence. We have behavior that we, humans, perceive as intelligent in a very narrow sense. Intelligence implies an environment and some sort of self-conservation. So being able to predict the environment AND using the prediction to survive/gain an advantage. The leaf to a self and consciousness is not that big from this but made murky by not knowing what consciousness really is to begin with.
- cjbprime 4y ago
  So a single-cell protozoa is more intelligent than GPT-4, then. This definition doesn't seem to be very useful?
  - x86x87 4y ago
    Yes, it is more intelligent. Also, given enough time that protozoa can evolve. GPT4 cannot. In fact GPT4 makes zero sense if humans are not involved and are not using it as a tool. It's a tool we have created. The problem when talking about AI, AGI, intelligence is that we are always doing that using an anthropomorphized lens. If we discard this lens and take these developments at face value for what they are, tools, the conversation can be honest and we can talk about pros/cons and where these technologies can be used. To pretend that the machines are going to take over any minute now and what we are seeing is "intelligence" will only help drive certain discourses and in the worst case will make these tools available for a small minority or have them banned altogether.
saurik 4y ago
I mean, I am not sure you are sentient either--even putting aside the question of whether you are a bot or a dog, I can't directly experience whether anyone but myself is sentient--but the whole point of AGI is that I would be hard-pressed to decide that it is any less privileged than you are to claim it is sentient as it is seemingly just as generally intelligent as you. If you just have something that is superhuman at a few things but clearly lacking something so fundamental to the idea of general intelligence that you wouldn't even be willing to consider whether it is at least as conscious as a dog then you really don't have AGI, you just have AI, or maybe even merely ML.

x86x87 4y ago

I don't know what planet you're from but for me the I in AGI stands for intelligence. Nothing today is even close to intelligence. We have behavior that we, humans, perceive as intelligent in a very narrow sense. Intelligence implies an environment and some sort of self-conservation. So being able to predict the environment AND using the prediction to survive/gain an advantage. The leaf to a self and consciousness is not that big from this but made murky by not knowing what consciousness really is to begin with.

cjbprime 4y ago
So a single-cell protozoa is more intelligent than GPT-4, then. This definition doesn't seem to be very useful?
- x86x87 4y ago
  Yes, it is more intelligent. Also, given enough time that protozoa can evolve. GPT4 cannot. In fact GPT4 makes zero sense if humans are not involved and are not using it as a tool. It's a tool we have created. The problem when talking about AI, AGI, intelligence is that we are always doing that using an anthropomorphized lens. If we discard this lens and take these developments at face value for what they are, tools, the conversation can be honest and we can talk about pros/cons and where these technologies can be used. To pretend that the machines are going to take over any minute now and what we are seeing is "intelligence" will only help drive certain discourses and in the worst case will make these tools available for a small minority or have them banned altogether.

saurik 4y ago

I mean, I am not sure you are sentient either--even putting aside the question of whether you are a bot or a dog, I can't directly experience whether anyone but myself is sentient--but the whole point of AGI is that I would be hard-pressed to decide that it is any less privileged than you are to claim it is sentient as it is seemingly just as generally intelligent as you. If you just have something that is superhuman at a few things but clearly lacking something so fundamental to the idea of general intelligence that you wouldn't even be willing to consider whether it is at least as conscious as a dog then you really don't have AGI, you just have AI, or maybe even merely ML.