3 ms·
Right. I think one reason that the definition of AGI is so contentious is that we're not that close to it. All of the current benchmarks are interesting but I d
by skepticATX 3y ago
Right. I think one reason that the definition of AGI is so contentious is that we're not that close to it. All of the current benchmarks are interesting but I don't see how we ever use those to declare that AGI has been reached. And quite frankly, I don't think we'd even care about most of them if we had a truly intelligent system.
For me, if hook up an AI with no training to a vehicle and it drives at a human level in arbitrary scenarios, I'd consider it to be AGI. It seems obvious to me that we're not very close to this.
- famouswaffles 3y ago>For me, if hook up an AI with no training to a vehicle and it drives at a human level in arbitrary scenarios Lol what human with no training is going to succeed at driving ?
- skepticATX 3y agoMost teenagers are at least somewhat competent from the very beginning. The rest of the time is spent becoming confident.
- famouswaffles 3y agoI really beg to differ lol and I imagine many instructors would say the same. Humans who have never driven before are not capable of driving unsupervised and there are a lot of laws in place to make sure they don't get the chance to.
- jeremyjh 3y agoA teenager isn’t going to try to accelerate by turning up the volume on the radio or opening the window but an AI with no training would have to try those kind of things.
- danbruc 3y agoThat would depend on the specifics of the AI, even without training on driving, it could still have some knowledge from seeing others drive or being able to identify the symbols on the controls or playing racing games. No training or prior knowledge seem an unfair comparison, that would be more like asking a newborn baby to drive.
- wizofaus 3y agoIf they'd never been inside a car before or watched others drive on TV etc. I wouldn't be so sure - fiddling with the volume knob seems a likely enough experimental approach.
- wizofaus 3y agoBut you can't even train current any current AGI candidates to drive as well as a human... In fact arguably that's the biggest thing missing from current AI models - you can't readily/reliably teach them new skills just by demonstration and explanation, only by uploading new massive training datasets (for which there's no straightforward way of knowing whether they contain enough data for the skills/knowledge to be absorbed).
- janalsncm 3y agoYou may want to look into Alpha Zero. It learned to play chess at superhuman levels in just hours of play. The only human assistance were the rules of the game. That wasn’t human instruction but it was arguably better since human instructions are ambiguous and imperfect. No chess grandmaster could instruct a chess engine to play better than the state of the art. Completing a task from first principles is much more powerful.
- wizofaus 3y agoAnd once have an AI engine that, given just the instructions on how to drive a car and a list of road rules, can operate one perfectly, I'd agree we're a huge step closer to an AGI (if it can also learn how to do all the other things most humans can just given similar inputs, then sure, it would qualify unreservedly).
- janalsncm 3y agoSure, and at that point we can shift the goalposts to some other task since driving (like chess) will seem easy in retrospect. Put another way, what would a system which has taught itself to drive tell us about general intelligence that we didn’t already know? Because as of now it seems like the pattern is Computers could never do X Computers can’t do X Computers can’t do X very well Computers can’t do X well in some cases X wasn’t really a test of AGI because it’s just <algorithm to do X>
- skepticATX 3y ago