3 ms·

> If AGI is a computer passing a test, then AGI was achieved a long time ago. AIs couldn't even pass a third-grade reading comprehension exam until about 5 yea

by p-e-w 3y ago

> If AGI is a computer passing a test, then AGI was achieved a long time ago. AIs couldn't even pass a third-grade reading comprehension exam until about 5 years ago. Computers being able to pass tests designed for humans is a very new thing. > it's clear LLMs are not AGIs And the main argument for that is that "it's clear". They're beating lawyers, doctors, and software engineers, but obviously, that's not real intelligence...

qup 3y ago
> Computers being able to pass tests designed for humans is a very new thing. Yes! Captchas so effective!
- comex 3y ago
  Yes, it would be more accurate to say “computers being able to pass tests designed for humans by humans”, as opposed to CAPTCHAs which are automatically generated tests.
shreyshnaccount 3y ago
You're assuming that everything needed to write code or make arguments is purely intelligence based and has nothing to do with patterns, structural repetition and things glorified autocomplete could do, and that's not true.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Who said anything about everything? AI could not write code AT ALL until very recently. We could invent a drug that kills 99% of cancers and the next day there would be people bemoaning that it isn't a "true" cure.
  - shreyshnaccount 3y ago
    Hey you're the one claiming intelligence and all, burden of proving it in squarely on you
    - dr_dshiv 3y ago
      Yes. Let’s define AGI as ability for a single model to pass most human professional tests (no cheating) and to provide genuine human-level flexible cognitive benefit to specialized professionals in diverse fields. Reasonable?
      - shreyshnaccount 3y ago
        No, because most tests designed for humans test memory and pattern recognition, which computers already can do better than humans so it's not a useful comparison. I'd rather define it to be superhuman AGI when it not only performs better on tests with humans who can use computers during the test but also can perform everyday tasks which are not 'hard' for us humans. That is because we have the hardware in our brains to do these things, doesn't mean that it's easy in the least for a computer.
        dr_dshiv 3y ago
        Have some examples? What would be tests that, if passed, you’d say “oh yeah, that’s AGI.” For instance, if it could make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Most challenging things that are easy for us are in the motor domain. While important, I think “intellectual AGI” is a meaningful milestone and closest to what most people think of when they think AGI.
        shreyshnaccount 3y ago
        The problem with defining AGI isn't only in defining intelligence, but also defining general. Also, why do we treat AGI as a yes/no question, when it probably makes sense to think partially... i don't have a definition of either
        dr_dshiv 3y ago
        And that’s why I argue that AGI is already here. It is a spectrum. And we are well along the way to further acceleration. And if you want to say “no, we are not at AGI yet”, we need to define a clear test of what would be beyond that point.
WoodenChair 3y ago
>> If AGI is a computer passing a test, then AGI was achieved a long time ago. > AIs couldn't even pass a third-grade reading comprehension exam until about 5 years ago. Computers being able to pass tests designed for humans is a very new thing. You're narrowly defining what a "test" is. And therefore the "until 5 years ago" doesn't make any sense. A test is not just written exams like a "third-grade reading comprehension exam." Is playing chess against the world champion not a test? A trad AI computer program beat him 25 years ago, not 5 years ago. Is diagnosing patients with a particular disease better than the average untrained human not a test? An expert system did that 50 years ago. Your point is not a refutation of the parent post.

by p-e-w 3y ago

qup 3y ago

> Computers being able to pass tests designed for humans is a very new thing. Yes! Captchas so effective!

comex 3y ago
Yes, it would be more accurate to say “computers being able to pass tests designed for humans by humans”, as opposed to CAPTCHAs which are automatically generated tests.

shreyshnaccount 3y ago

You're assuming that everything needed to write code or make arguments is purely intelligence based and has nothing to do with patterns, structural repetition and things glorified autocomplete could do, and that's not true.

flangola7 3y ago
Who said anything about everything? AI could not write code AT ALL until very recently. We could invent a drug that kills 99% of cancers and the next day there would be people bemoaning that it isn't a "true" cure.
- shreyshnaccount 3y ago
  Hey you're the one claiming intelligence and all, burden of proving it in squarely on you
  - dr_dshiv 3y ago
    Yes. Let’s define AGI as ability for a single model to pass most human professional tests (no cheating) and to provide genuine human-level flexible cognitive benefit to specialized professionals in diverse fields. Reasonable?
    - shreyshnaccount 3y ago
      No, because most tests designed for humans test memory and pattern recognition, which computers already can do better than humans so it's not a useful comparison. I'd rather define it to be superhuman AGI when it not only performs better on tests with humans who can use computers during the test but also can perform everyday tasks which are not 'hard' for us humans. That is because we have the hardware in our brains to do these things, doesn't mean that it's easy in the least for a computer.
      - dr_dshiv 3y ago
        Have some examples? What would be tests that, if passed, you’d say “oh yeah, that’s AGI.” For instance, if it could make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Most challenging things that are easy for us are in the motor domain. While important, I think “intellectual AGI” is a meaningful milestone and closest to what most people think of when they think AGI.
        shreyshnaccount 3y ago
        The problem with defining AGI isn't only in defining intelligence, but also defining general. Also, why do we treat AGI as a yes/no question, when it probably makes sense to think partially... i don't have a definition of either
        dr_dshiv 3y ago
        And that’s why I argue that AGI is already here. It is a spectrum. And we are well along the way to further acceleration. And if you want to say “no, we are not at AGI yet”, we need to define a clear test of what would be beyond that point.

WoodenChair 3y ago

>> If AGI is a computer passing a test, then AGI was achieved a long time ago. > AIs couldn't even pass a third-grade reading comprehension exam until about 5 years ago. Computers being able to pass tests designed for humans is a very new thing. You're narrowly defining what a "test" is. And therefore the "until 5 years ago" doesn't make any sense. A test is not just written exams like a "third-grade reading comprehension exam." Is playing chess against the world champion not a test? A trad AI computer program beat him 25 years ago, not 5 years ago. Is diagnosing patients with a particular disease better than the average untrained human not a test? An expert system did that 50 years ago. Your point is not a refutation of the parent post.