3 ms·

Artificial and Generally Intelligent. That's what it's supposed to mean. What it used to mean. A bar we have passed. Now there's all sorts of weird offshoots w

Artificial and Generally Intelligent. That's what it's supposed to mean. What it used to mean. A bar we have passed. Now there's all sorts of weird offshoots where passing the bar is tantamount to Super Intelligence. "For some, it might mean any that is needs to do everything a normal human can. For some, non-biological life axiomatically cannot become AGI. For some, it must be "conscious" and "sentient". For some, it might require literal omniscience and omnipotence and accepting anything as AGI means, to them, that they are being told to worship it as a God. For some, it might mean something more like an AI that is more competent than the most competent human at literally every task. For some, acknowledging it means that we must acknowledge it has person-like rights. For some it cannot be AGI if it lies. For some it cannot be AGI if it makes any mistake. For some it cannot be AGI until it has more power than humans. These are several definitions and implications that are partially or wholly mutually conflicting but I have seen different people say that AGI is each different one of those." He should define his version but it obviously doesn't matter what he defines it as since humans are in the business of making up new posts on the fly.

lm28469 3y ago
> Artificial and Generally Intelligent. That's what it's supposed to mean. What it used to mean. A bar we have passed. Since when? You can ask 10 people and get 10 different definitions
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  That was the idea when the term was coined. Obviously now it just means all sorts of things.
  - lm28469 3y ago
    But what's "general" ? Does it exist physically ? Can it play tennis ? Can it smell a flower ? Can it assemble an ikea shelf ? Can it make and serve me a tea ? Some people, even on HN, say chatgpt already is AGI for example...
    - famouswaffles 3y ago
      General was to distinguish between the Narrow intelligences of the time, intelligences that could only complete one task. General was taken to mean "many different tasks". It was not supposed to mean "any task imaginable". Smell, play tennis, Assemble an Ikea shelf are clearly not hard bars of general intelligence. There are millions of disabled humans who can't do any of the things you mentioned. Are they not general intelligences ? Yes GPT-4 is AGI by the original definition.
      - lm28469 3y ago
        > Yes GPT-4 is AGI by the original definition. Where can I find this "original definition" ? I can't find any consensus about chatgpt being AGI, even openAI doesn't present it as is, nor can I find any serious paper about it being AGI either It is a language model, a very good one, but language is the party trick of intelligence, hence people get easily tricked and anthropomorphise chatgpt to give it attributes it doesn't actually displays.
        famouswaffles 3y ago
        1. "I think GPT-3 is artificial general intelligence, AGI. I think GPT-3 is as intelligent as a human. And I think that it is probably more intelligent than a human in a restricted way… in many ways it is more purely intelligent than humans are. I think humans are approximating what GPT-3 is doing, not vice versa.” — Connor Leahy, co-founder of EleutherAI, creator of GPT-J (November 2020) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrV19SjKUss&t=175s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrV19SjKUss&t=175s 2. https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-already-here/ https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-... 3. Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 The especially funny thing bout this paper is that the original title in the tex source on that arxiv page is "First Contact With an AGI System" \title{%\textbf{WORK IN PROGRESS - DO NOT SHARE} \\ %First Contact With an AGI System} \textbf{Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence:} \\ \textbf{Early experiments with GPT-4}} 4. Artificial muses: Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Have Risen to Human-Level Creativity. These guys just switched the order of two words so they wouldn't have to call it AGI lol. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12003 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12003 5. Open ai. GPTs are GPTs (General Purpose Technologies): An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models - https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10130 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10130 6. Accuracy of a Generative Artificial Intelligence Model in a Complex Diagnostic Challenge - The old switcheroo again. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2806457 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/28064... There isn't a testable definition of General Intelligence that GPT-4 would fail that a chunk of humans also wouldn't. If there are some humans that can't pass your bar of general intelligence then it is not a test of general intelligence.

lm28469 3y ago

> Artificial and Generally Intelligent. That's what it's supposed to mean. What it used to mean. A bar we have passed. Since when? You can ask 10 people and get 10 different definitions

famouswaffles 3y ago
That was the idea when the term was coined. Obviously now it just means all sorts of things.
- lm28469 3y ago
  But what's "general" ? Does it exist physically ? Can it play tennis ? Can it smell a flower ? Can it assemble an ikea shelf ? Can it make and serve me a tea ? Some people, even on HN, say chatgpt already is AGI for example...
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    General was to distinguish between the Narrow intelligences of the time, intelligences that could only complete one task. General was taken to mean "many different tasks". It was not supposed to mean "any task imaginable". Smell, play tennis, Assemble an Ikea shelf are clearly not hard bars of general intelligence. There are millions of disabled humans who can't do any of the things you mentioned. Are they not general intelligences ? Yes GPT-4 is AGI by the original definition.
    - lm28469 3y ago
      > Yes GPT-4 is AGI by the original definition. Where can I find this "original definition" ? I can't find any consensus about chatgpt being AGI, even openAI doesn't present it as is, nor can I find any serious paper about it being AGI either It is a language model, a very good one, but language is the party trick of intelligence, hence people get easily tricked and anthropomorphise chatgpt to give it attributes it doesn't actually displays.
      - famouswaffles 3y ago
        1. "I think GPT-3 is artificial general intelligence, AGI. I think GPT-3 is as intelligent as a human. And I think that it is probably more intelligent than a human in a restricted way… in many ways it is more purely intelligent than humans are. I think humans are approximating what GPT-3 is doing, not vice versa.” — Connor Leahy, co-founder of EleutherAI, creator of GPT-J (November 2020) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrV19SjKUss&t=175s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrV19SjKUss&t=175s 2. https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-already-here/ https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-... 3. Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 The especially funny thing bout this paper is that the original title in the tex source on that arxiv page is "First Contact With an AGI System" \title{%\textbf{WORK IN PROGRESS - DO NOT SHARE} \\ %First Contact With an AGI System} \textbf{Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence:} \\ \textbf{Early experiments with GPT-4}} 4. Artificial muses: Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Have Risen to Human-Level Creativity. These guys just switched the order of two words so they wouldn't have to call it AGI lol. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12003 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12003 5. Open ai. GPTs are GPTs (General Purpose Technologies): An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models - https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10130 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10130 6. Accuracy of a Generative Artificial Intelligence Model in a Complex Diagnostic Challenge - The old switcheroo again. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2806457 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/28064... There isn't a testable definition of General Intelligence that GPT-4 would fail that a chunk of humans also wouldn't. If there are some humans that can't pass your bar of general intelligence then it is not a test of general intelligence.