3 ms·
As I see it, the problem with that is that "a sufficiently unrecognizable AGI does not exist" is the unprovable null hypothesis: anything in the past or present
by LegionMammal978 3y ago
As I see it, the problem with that is that "a sufficiently unrecognizable AGI does not exist" is the unprovable null hypothesis: anything in the past or present could contain an unrecognizable AGI, since by definition we wouldn't have recognized its influence. For instance, how would one go about proving that there's no unrecognizable AGI in the otherwise-banal GPT-2, that would make itself apparent if only we found the right prompts? In the absence of any hard negative answers, we're left to try to empirically glean the answer to the not-AGI vs. AGI question for each model by poring over the text outputs as we understand them, arguing endlessly over how much is "regurgitation" or "pattern-matching" and how much is "original thought".
- bloopernova 3y agogood point, and pokes a rather big ol' hole in my comment :) I don't think we will recognize the AGI's existence until long after it has appeared, and I don't think it will be through the text output of chatGPT10 or whatever. I feel like we'll need to learn to infer AGI's existence because at first our own programming won't be the right way for the AGI to express itself or communicate with us. Kind of like those analogue computers or neural nets that rely on some random unforeseen external factor to work, like local magnetic field or air pressure. I do agree that there will be endless arguing over whether symptom x, y, or z definitively shows that there's a spark of understanding and self-awareness.