9 ms·

What exactly is your definition of a AGI? Because we’re already passing the Turing test, and so I have to wonder if this isn’t just moving the goalposts.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cubefox 3y ago
ChatGPT (instruction tuned autoregressive language models) indeed already seems quite general (it's good at conversation Turing tests without faking it like ELIZA), even if the absolute intelligence is limited. Level of generality and intelligence is not the same. Something could be quite narrow but very intelligent (AlphaGo) or quite general but dumb overall (small kid, insect). Okay, ChatGPT is only text-to-text, but Google & Co are adding more modalities now, including images, audio and robotics. I think one missing step is to fuse training and inference regime into one, just as in animals. That probably requires something else than the usual transformer-based token predictors.
- Demotooodo 3y ago
  Yepp. I also see puzzle peaces falling in place with multimodal models. This will be a great strategy very fast. It shows to be quite good for image generation already
- phkahler 3y ago
  >> I think one missing step is to fuse training and inference regime into one, just as in animals. This has always been an important missing piece. Without it ChatGPT is just a natural language interface to the information it was trained on. Still useful but unable to learn (aside from context).
- reader5000 3y ago
  > I think one missing step is to fuse training and inference regime into one, just as in animals It's not clear it is one. Sleep is training (replay from hippocampus). Wake is inference.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    Sleep could be for long term memory, but clearly not everything else is "context" (short term memory). Maybe you learn something in the morning which requires you to remember it for >12 hours before you go to bed.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > Wake is inference. I'm not sure how anyone could be this naive. Mammal brains don't have this train mode inference mode. They are both running at all times. If what you said was true, if I taught you something today you wouldn't be able to perform that action till tomorrow. Hell, schools would be an insane concept if this were true. Try to think a bit more before confidently stating an answer.
- tuukkah 3y ago
  > it's good at conversation Turing tests without faking it like ELIZA Just like ELIZA can be said to be faking it, ChatGPT is faking it in a different way.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    If ChatGPT is faking it, we are faking it. We are not faking it. Therefore ChatGPT isn't faking it.
    - tuukkah 3y ago
      We are not doing the same as ChatGPT. For instance: Because of its training, ChatGPT tries to answer like a human. Humans don't try to answer like a human.
      - cubefox 3y ago
        We do try to answer in a way that makes us understood by other humans.
- TylerE 3y ago
  One distinction I would make is that at true AGI should have internet access and be able to query for updated information, instead of being stuck in the time moment it's trained.
  - shrimpx 3y ago
    True AGI should have a personality, tastes, opinions, and feelings; and negotiate its role in a social hierarchy.
    - oefnak 3y ago
      Which will obviously be on top.
  - 98codes 3y ago
    I'd say the opposite -- compare it to us: if you take away our internet we get cranky, but we don't lose all ability to think intelligently.
    - TylerE 3y ago
      Imagine if someone took away your speech, hearing, TV, radio, newspaper, and the ability to order new books - you only had access to the knowledge you already have. You're only allowed to communicate via serial terminal, and can only respond, not initiate.
      - cubefox 3y ago
        Bing Chat already accepts images as input. AutoGPT can initiate.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    Bing does that all the time.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  I feel like though I speak the same language as everyone else, at least nominally, none of you are using the same definitions as I do for any of these terms. AGI was the result of people using the older term "AI" for things that hadn't turned out to be what we thought AI was going to be. Like alot of technology terms, all of this has its orgins in science fiction, when AI was supposed to be the equivalent of a human mind, but constructed out of something other than meat. The AI would have agency, it would do things... and do them because it wanted to. It would have goals, that it might fail or succeed at. And it would learn... a proper AI might be constructed to know nothing about a particular subject, but it could then go on to learn (on its own without any outside help) all about that topic. Perhaps even to the point of conducting its own original research to learn more. A sufficiently intelligent AI would go on to learn things no human had ever learned, to invent and theorize inventions and theories no human had conceived of. But then we all realized that intelligence might be severable from those other parts, and we might have an "oracle" that when asked questions could provide sensible answers, but would have no agency. That wouldn't be able to learn in any real way, but since it already knew the sensible answers, that didn't matter. And at that point, you see AGI start being used. And I assumed it meant "well, that is what we'll call Asimov's robots, or Skynet, or whatever". Except, here you are again using AGI to mean the dumb oracles that aren't intelligent in any meaningful way. Like, wtf.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    GPT-4 is clearly not "dumb".
emmanueloga_ 3y ago
Self consciousness. Human-level of reasoning. Feelings, etc. We are NOT close to AGI. * Fancy Markov chain (LLM) is not AGI. * Stable diffusion style of image generation is NOT AGI. * Fancy computer vision is NOT AGI. Honestly, I don't think we are any closer to AGI. What we are seeing is the peak of "fancy tricks" for computer generated artifacts.
- algoatecorn 3y ago
  Aren't we all just performing probablistic decision paths in our own minds? Would "feelings" improve decision accuracy in artificial systems?
  - emmanueloga_ 3y ago
    > Aren't we all just performing probabilistic decision paths in our own minds? Wild speculation. The human brain is still pretty much a black box. > Would "feelings" improve decision accuracy in artificial systems? Hard to tell, since we haven't observed any cases of sentient A.I. (able to feel). The only general intelligence we know (humans) have feelings as one of the most prominent features, so much so that "accuracy" is not the main driver for any given human... far from it. I don't know of any human that couldn't in one way or another be classified as "irrational".
  - mattbuilds 3y ago
    Obviously we can’t prove this, but my instincts are that we don’t do things with probabilistic decision paths. Not very scientific of me, but I just don’t buy that’s how we make decisions.
    - Workaccount2 3y ago
      There really isn't room for much else. Decisions making in our universe is a 1-dimensional slider between deterministic and random. That's it. Write a program that makes non-deterministic, non-random (or any combination) decisions. You can't. It's like asking to create a new primary color.
  - 3y ago
prmph 3y ago
A Mechanical Turk can also pass the Turing test. As a black box, it is indistinguishable from an LLM, and yet that would not be evidence of AGI. So what's your point?
shrimpx 3y ago
How do you pass the Turing test with “As an AI, I don’t have opinions and I don’t know shit after September 2021” The idea that GPT4 passed the Turing test is preposterous unless the test is a much more restricted version of what I think it is — in which case it would be meaningless.
- jimmySixDOF 3y ago
  GPT4 can pass the Turing Test! The Turing test line has been crossed more times than most Popes some would say the Eliza Effect fooled people enough in the 60s to count. No comment on the AGI claim you are responding to - but them putting GPT4 in a septic bubble suit is not relevant.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cubefox 3y ago

ChatGPT (instruction tuned autoregressive language models) indeed already seems quite general (it's good at conversation Turing tests without faking it like ELIZA), even if the absolute intelligence is limited. Level of generality and intelligence is not the same. Something could be quite narrow but very intelligent (AlphaGo) or quite general but dumb overall (small kid, insect). Okay, ChatGPT is only text-to-text, but Google & Co are adding more modalities now, including images, audio and robotics. I think one missing step is to fuse training and inference regime into one, just as in animals. That probably requires something else than the usual transformer-based token predictors.

Demotooodo 3y ago
Yepp. I also see puzzle peaces falling in place with multimodal models. This will be a great strategy very fast. It shows to be quite good for image generation already
phkahler 3y ago
>> I think one missing step is to fuse training and inference regime into one, just as in animals. This has always been an important missing piece. Without it ChatGPT is just a natural language interface to the information it was trained on. Still useful but unable to learn (aside from context).
reader5000 3y ago
> I think one missing step is to fuse training and inference regime into one, just as in animals It's not clear it is one. Sleep is training (replay from hippocampus). Wake is inference.
- cubefox 3y ago
  Sleep could be for long term memory, but clearly not everything else is "context" (short term memory). Maybe you learn something in the morning which requires you to remember it for >12 hours before you go to bed.
- godelski 3y ago
  > Wake is inference. I'm not sure how anyone could be this naive. Mammal brains don't have this train mode inference mode. They are both running at all times. If what you said was true, if I taught you something today you wouldn't be able to perform that action till tomorrow. Hell, schools would be an insane concept if this were true. Try to think a bit more before confidently stating an answer.
tuukkah 3y ago
> it's good at conversation Turing tests without faking it like ELIZA Just like ELIZA can be said to be faking it, ChatGPT is faking it in a different way.
- cubefox 3y ago
  If ChatGPT is faking it, we are faking it. We are not faking it. Therefore ChatGPT isn't faking it.
  - tuukkah 3y ago
    We are not doing the same as ChatGPT. For instance: Because of its training, ChatGPT tries to answer like a human. Humans don't try to answer like a human.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      We do try to answer in a way that makes us understood by other humans.
TylerE 3y ago
One distinction I would make is that at true AGI should have internet access and be able to query for updated information, instead of being stuck in the time moment it's trained.
- shrimpx 3y ago
  True AGI should have a personality, tastes, opinions, and feelings; and negotiate its role in a social hierarchy.
  - oefnak 3y ago
    Which will obviously be on top.
- 98codes 3y ago
  I'd say the opposite -- compare it to us: if you take away our internet we get cranky, but we don't lose all ability to think intelligently.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    Imagine if someone took away your speech, hearing, TV, radio, newspaper, and the ability to order new books - you only had access to the knowledge you already have. You're only allowed to communicate via serial terminal, and can only respond, not initiate.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      Bing Chat already accepts images as input. AutoGPT can initiate.
- cubefox 3y ago
  Bing does that all the time.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
I feel like though I speak the same language as everyone else, at least nominally, none of you are using the same definitions as I do for any of these terms. AGI was the result of people using the older term "AI" for things that hadn't turned out to be what we thought AI was going to be. Like alot of technology terms, all of this has its orgins in science fiction, when AI was supposed to be the equivalent of a human mind, but constructed out of something other than meat. The AI would have agency, it would do things... and do them because it wanted to. It would have goals, that it might fail or succeed at. And it would learn... a proper AI might be constructed to know nothing about a particular subject, but it could then go on to learn (on its own without any outside help) all about that topic. Perhaps even to the point of conducting its own original research to learn more. A sufficiently intelligent AI would go on to learn things no human had ever learned, to invent and theorize inventions and theories no human had conceived of. But then we all realized that intelligence might be severable from those other parts, and we might have an "oracle" that when asked questions could provide sensible answers, but would have no agency. That wouldn't be able to learn in any real way, but since it already knew the sensible answers, that didn't matter. And at that point, you see AGI start being used. And I assumed it meant "well, that is what we'll call Asimov's robots, or Skynet, or whatever". Except, here you are again using AGI to mean the dumb oracles that aren't intelligent in any meaningful way. Like, wtf.
- cubefox 3y ago
  GPT-4 is clearly not "dumb".

emmanueloga_ 3y ago

Self consciousness. Human-level of reasoning. Feelings, etc. We are NOT close to AGI. * Fancy Markov chain (LLM) is not AGI. * Stable diffusion style of image generation is NOT AGI. * Fancy computer vision is NOT AGI. Honestly, I don't think we are any closer to AGI. What we are seeing is the peak of "fancy tricks" for computer generated artifacts.

algoatecorn 3y ago
Aren't we all just performing probablistic decision paths in our own minds? Would "feelings" improve decision accuracy in artificial systems?
- emmanueloga_ 3y ago
  > Aren't we all just performing probabilistic decision paths in our own minds? Wild speculation. The human brain is still pretty much a black box. > Would "feelings" improve decision accuracy in artificial systems? Hard to tell, since we haven't observed any cases of sentient A.I. (able to feel). The only general intelligence we know (humans) have feelings as one of the most prominent features, so much so that "accuracy" is not the main driver for any given human... far from it. I don't know of any human that couldn't in one way or another be classified as "irrational".
- mattbuilds 3y ago
  Obviously we can’t prove this, but my instincts are that we don’t do things with probabilistic decision paths. Not very scientific of me, but I just don’t buy that’s how we make decisions.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    There really isn't room for much else. Decisions making in our universe is a 1-dimensional slider between deterministic and random. That's it. Write a program that makes non-deterministic, non-random (or any combination) decisions. You can't. It's like asking to create a new primary color.
- 3y ago

prmph 3y ago

A Mechanical Turk can also pass the Turing test. As a black box, it is indistinguishable from an LLM, and yet that would not be evidence of AGI. So what's your point?

shrimpx 3y ago

How do you pass the Turing test with “As an AI, I don’t have opinions and I don’t know shit after September 2021” The idea that GPT4 passed the Turing test is preposterous unless the test is a much more restricted version of what I think it is — in which case it would be meaningless.

jimmySixDOF 3y ago
GPT4 can pass the Turing Test! The Turing test line has been crossed more times than most Popes some would say the Eliza Effect fooled people enough in the 60s to count. No comment on the AGI claim you are responding to - but them putting GPT4 in a septic bubble suit is not relevant.