4 ms·

But 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 mod

But 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 ago
You 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 ago
  And 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 ago
    Sure, 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
      Well, let’s think about it from the opposite direction. Say we built a general system without teaching it anything about driving. We discover that it can drive at a human level. Would we then be surprised if we discover that it cannot solve any other complex tasks at a human level? I say yes, we would be surprised. I think that driving well requires enough general intelligence and that any system that solves it will be able to also, say, pass a high school algebra class or cook a meal in an unfamiliar kitchen. There can be no further goalpost moving at that point.
    - wizofaus 3y ago
      > Sure, and at that point we can shift the goalposts to some other task If you like. But I'm happy with where I have them. I'm also pretty confident I'll see that goal reached in my lifetime.

janalsncm 3y ago

You 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 ago
And 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 ago
  Sure, 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
    Well, let’s think about it from the opposite direction. Say we built a general system without teaching it anything about driving. We discover that it can drive at a human level. Would we then be surprised if we discover that it cannot solve any other complex tasks at a human level? I say yes, we would be surprised. I think that driving well requires enough general intelligence and that any system that solves it will be able to also, say, pass a high school algebra class or cook a meal in an unfamiliar kitchen. There can be no further goalpost moving at that point.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    > Sure, and at that point we can shift the goalposts to some other task If you like. But I'm happy with where I have them. I'm also pretty confident I'll see that goal reached in my lifetime.