5 ms·

If there is such emergent behavior that looks intelligent, how can you tell it apart from human intelligence? Devising a test that can answer this is an area of

If there is such emergent behavior that looks intelligent, how can you tell it apart from human intelligence? Devising a test that can answer this is an area of active research. Let's say for instance that it can come up with a novel mathematical proof that was not part of its training data - would you accept that as evidence towards AGI?

mordae 4y ago
I would accept that as a proof of AI, not AGI. Provided it can do it repeatably and reliably. Hallucinating a proof that's 90% time wrong is just a parrot. For AGI, I would expect it to be teachable during the conversation. That is, to be able to form abstract models of reality and utilize them on the fly. Repeatably, reliably. Like a human with a pencil and a piece of paper can.
- benj111 4y ago
  If I showed an AI a picture of a duck. They could remember that. We already have models that can be shown multiple pictures of ducks, learn what the essential characteristics of a duck are and identify novel pictures of ducks. So the AI has been taught. Has formed an abstract model of a duck and can reliably identify ducks. When does that become AGI? It can't purely be writing proofs because that's niche even for humans. Further what is intelligence? A professor of mathematics may be able to rattle off a proof. A 3 year old probably not. The 3 year old has amazing learning potential though. We accept that both the professor and the 3 year old display intelligence, but we dont seem to apply the same rules to AI.
  - pmoriarty 4y ago
    Another analogy is not to a child but to a part of the brain. Can a part of the human brain be intelligent? Are humans missing a part of their brain, such as through brain damage, intelligent? Such humans may not be as fully capable as humans with an uninjured brain, but (depending on the extent of the damage) we would still consider them intelligent and conscious. We may think of current AI's like that: as partially functional intelligences. But in a way they are more, because some of their functions exceed human capacity. So they are really something new: in some ways less than humans, in some ways more.
benj111 4y ago
Agreed. Our conception of 'intelligence' is based on us rather than some objective metric. There's absolutely no reason for an intelligence to be anything like us. We are flawed in a great many respects. We'll parrot things we have no reason to believe in etc, etc,etc. Im not even sure there's a distinction between intelligence and emergent behaviour. Did we evolve to speak and write complex language or is that emergent behaviour?
lionkor 4y ago
I'm pretty sure engineers at OpenAI working on GPT-4 could very much demystify this entire discussion, but they choose not to. They didn't find out how to do AGI, they found a way to get a lot of people very very excited by employing a veil of secrecy and mystery. Its a program. You can see what it does, and there is a possibility to see what it was trained on. "Open"AI just chooses to hide that. If it was really that smart, OpenAI would have no issue publishing some more informationn on it.

mordae 4y ago

I would accept that as a proof of AI, not AGI. Provided it can do it repeatably and reliably. Hallucinating a proof that's 90% time wrong is just a parrot. For AGI, I would expect it to be teachable during the conversation. That is, to be able to form abstract models of reality and utilize them on the fly. Repeatably, reliably. Like a human with a pencil and a piece of paper can.

benj111 4y ago
If I showed an AI a picture of a duck. They could remember that. We already have models that can be shown multiple pictures of ducks, learn what the essential characteristics of a duck are and identify novel pictures of ducks. So the AI has been taught. Has formed an abstract model of a duck and can reliably identify ducks. When does that become AGI? It can't purely be writing proofs because that's niche even for humans. Further what is intelligence? A professor of mathematics may be able to rattle off a proof. A 3 year old probably not. The 3 year old has amazing learning potential though. We accept that both the professor and the 3 year old display intelligence, but we dont seem to apply the same rules to AI.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  Another analogy is not to a child but to a part of the brain. Can a part of the human brain be intelligent? Are humans missing a part of their brain, such as through brain damage, intelligent? Such humans may not be as fully capable as humans with an uninjured brain, but (depending on the extent of the damage) we would still consider them intelligent and conscious. We may think of current AI's like that: as partially functional intelligences. But in a way they are more, because some of their functions exceed human capacity. So they are really something new: in some ways less than humans, in some ways more.

benj111 4y ago

Agreed. Our conception of 'intelligence' is based on us rather than some objective metric. There's absolutely no reason for an intelligence to be anything like us. We are flawed in a great many respects. We'll parrot things we have no reason to believe in etc, etc,etc. Im not even sure there's a distinction between intelligence and emergent behaviour. Did we evolve to speak and write complex language or is that emergent behaviour?

lionkor 4y ago

I'm pretty sure engineers at OpenAI working on GPT-4 could very much demystify this entire discussion, but they choose not to. They didn't find out how to do AGI, they found a way to get a lot of people very very excited by employing a veil of secrecy and mystery. Its a program. You can see what it does, and there is a possibility to see what it was trained on. "Open"AI just chooses to hide that. If it was really that smart, OpenAI would have no issue publishing some more informationn on it.