3 ms·

For sure there's no clear specific on exactly what intelligence is, but I'd just go on to say it's what you'd consider intelligent as any other human. And when

For sure there's no clear specific on exactly what intelligence is, but I'd just go on to say it's what you'd consider intelligent as any other human. And when you play even with GPT4 or Claude. While it's able to apply some level of reasoning, can form sentences, understands you for the most part, and knows a lot of things, it fail to both have its own strong opinion of things, with a reasoning behind it, and at being consistent in it's reasoning. For example, if you ask it what it thinks are the best of something. And then it answers you it's X for those reasons. And then you ask it why not Y, it'll often just change it's mind: You're right, Y is always great, and could be the best. And if you challenge it's reasoning it'll similarly often go back and forth. It's little things like this that reminds you it's only a semantically correlated probabilistic prediction machine. And that in turn, doesn't seem to be the same as how we as humans are intelligent.

moffkalast 3y ago
> For sure there's no clear specific on exactly what intelligence is, but I'd just go on to say it's what you'd consider intelligent as any other human. That's not the definition, like many people you're haphazardly extending the meaning of a word to somehow mean AGI just so you can shift goalposts. > intelligence /ɪnˈtɛlɪdʒ(ə)ns/ noun 1. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. The second definition is for military information which we can disregard but clearly Oxford says there are two actions a 'thing' must do to be intelligent: learn and use the learned knowledge. LLMs can easily demonstrate both. Ergo, they are intelligent. Biological thinking or whatever is not a requirement. Hell, your average classical AI approaches are also intelligent, albeit in a very a limited area of expertise, e.g. learn movement of an object and apply that information to output predictive control. Your second assumption is that whatever flaws you're seeing are somehow a core fault of the architecture. Most of the current cloud models are tuned to be politically correct corporate drones which probably isn't the best demonstration of what they can do. They won't get into arguments with you nor will they hold strong opinions in an effort to not offend so the company doesn't get sued or cancelled. At least in my experience some non-assistant tuned Llama models are a lot more "human" in terms of their opinions. Regardless it's kind of a bullshit metric to consider for inteligence. I would expect that humans are only hard wired to hold strong opinions because it evolutionarily makes us harder to manipulate and more likely to survive. But yes nobody's saying they're human level conscious brains and it's foolish to change words to mean what they don't just to illustrate that.
- didibus 3y ago
  Did you read the article for context? The article, and the parent commenter both refer to "what's missing" for AI to reach human level intelligence. > The ability to use information in intuitive ways corresponds to what I and others call “system one abilities.” The little thin layer that is missing, known as “system two abilities,” is reasoning abilities. > he explained that he and other top AI researchers have revised their estimates for when artificial intelligence could achieve human levels of broad cognitive competence > I have the impression that it might not take a lot to fix what’s missing This is Bengio talking about what he thinks is missing for AI to reach the level of intelligence that threatens humanity. With the parent commenter questioning how what we have is close to that and how do you even define that level of intelligence.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
This is a description of the difference in how and what it learns rather than how it thinks. It doesn’t really "experience" on its own so it’s only parroting second-hand knowledge. Asking it for its opinion on something and it will give you an opinion. It might be nobody’s opinion or a common opinion but it seems to "know" how to form the sentence to communicate the opinion. Maybe "not as smart as an average human adult" is the bar most people expect but it still seems smarter than some dumb pets I’ve known. At the very least it can communicate with me in my language even if it’s dumb as a rock most of the time. I could be convinced that an adult is typing what their 7 year-old is telling them to write. (Not really but you get the idea. Maybe if the 7 year-old just knew all of wikiedia.)
- didibus 3y ago
  That's why I agree that you can decide to consider it a form of intelligence. Just like some people find Cancer cells evading the immune system, going into hiding, etc. is a form of intelligence. But it's not human intelligence. Because of some of what I said. Your 7 year old might not make fully cohesive sentences all the time, or know all of wikipedia, and would fail to answer some of the reasoning questions GPT4 can answer, but it sure will have a lot of strong opinions. And it kind of makes sense, you think about what it is, it learned a multi-variate, multi-dimensional deterministic function over a corpus of text embeddings that predicts the answer to a prompt, which it too learned from human guided prompting examples. Then it mimics "creativity" with added random seeds. And it kind of act as you'd expect from that. I'd also say, you'd expect it to be able to get smarter on its own. But it currently can't and needs the team of scientists to work on GPT5 on it's behalf. It's also not yet smart enough that it could figure out how to make its better GPT5 future iteration.

moffkalast 3y ago

> For sure there's no clear specific on exactly what intelligence is, but I'd just go on to say it's what you'd consider intelligent as any other human. That's not the definition, like many people you're haphazardly extending the meaning of a word to somehow mean AGI just so you can shift goalposts. > intelligence /ɪnˈtɛlɪdʒ(ə)ns/ noun 1. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. The second definition is for military information which we can disregard but clearly Oxford says there are two actions a 'thing' must do to be intelligent: learn and use the learned knowledge. LLMs can easily demonstrate both. Ergo, they are intelligent. Biological thinking or whatever is not a requirement. Hell, your average classical AI approaches are also intelligent, albeit in a very a limited area of expertise, e.g. learn movement of an object and apply that information to output predictive control. Your second assumption is that whatever flaws you're seeing are somehow a core fault of the architecture. Most of the current cloud models are tuned to be politically correct corporate drones which probably isn't the best demonstration of what they can do. They won't get into arguments with you nor will they hold strong opinions in an effort to not offend so the company doesn't get sued or cancelled. At least in my experience some non-assistant tuned Llama models are a lot more "human" in terms of their opinions. Regardless it's kind of a bullshit metric to consider for inteligence. I would expect that humans are only hard wired to hold strong opinions because it evolutionarily makes us harder to manipulate and more likely to survive. But yes nobody's saying they're human level conscious brains and it's foolish to change words to mean what they don't just to illustrate that.

didibus 3y ago
Did you read the article for context? The article, and the parent commenter both refer to "what's missing" for AI to reach human level intelligence. > The ability to use information in intuitive ways corresponds to what I and others call “system one abilities.” The little thin layer that is missing, known as “system two abilities,” is reasoning abilities. > he explained that he and other top AI researchers have revised their estimates for when artificial intelligence could achieve human levels of broad cognitive competence > I have the impression that it might not take a lot to fix what’s missing This is Bengio talking about what he thinks is missing for AI to reach the level of intelligence that threatens humanity. With the parent commenter questioning how what we have is close to that and how do you even define that level of intelligence.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

This is a description of the difference in how and what it learns rather than how it thinks. It doesn’t really "experience" on its own so it’s only parroting second-hand knowledge. Asking it for its opinion on something and it will give you an opinion. It might be nobody’s opinion or a common opinion but it seems to "know" how to form the sentence to communicate the opinion. Maybe "not as smart as an average human adult" is the bar most people expect but it still seems smarter than some dumb pets I’ve known. At the very least it can communicate with me in my language even if it’s dumb as a rock most of the time. I could be convinced that an adult is typing what their 7 year-old is telling them to write. (Not really but you get the idea. Maybe if the 7 year-old just knew all of wikiedia.)

didibus 3y ago
That's why I agree that you can decide to consider it a form of intelligence. Just like some people find Cancer cells evading the immune system, going into hiding, etc. is a form of intelligence. But it's not human intelligence. Because of some of what I said. Your 7 year old might not make fully cohesive sentences all the time, or know all of wikipedia, and would fail to answer some of the reasoning questions GPT4 can answer, but it sure will have a lot of strong opinions. And it kind of makes sense, you think about what it is, it learned a multi-variate, multi-dimensional deterministic function over a corpus of text embeddings that predicts the answer to a prompt, which it too learned from human guided prompting examples. Then it mimics "creativity" with added random seeds. And it kind of act as you'd expect from that. I'd also say, you'd expect it to be able to get smarter on its own. But it currently can't and needs the team of scientists to work on GPT5 on it's behalf. It's also not yet smart enough that it could figure out how to make its better GPT5 future iteration.