5 ms·

I think they make a category error by putting ChatGPT etc in the General column. As far as I can tell we only have narrow definitions of 'intelligence' and Chat

I think they make a category error by putting ChatGPT etc in the General column. As far as I can tell we only have narrow definitions of 'intelligence' and ChatGPT falls into one of those. I don't know of a general agreement on what 'General Intelligence' is in people, so how can we categorise anything is AGI? Knowing a bit about how ChatGPT works I feel it is a lot more like a chess program than a human.

famouswaffles 3y ago
That's not a category error. GPT is general. It is able to perform many tasks (Creative Writing, playing Chess, Poker and other games, language translation, Code, robot piloting) etc
- seanhunter 3y ago
  But not make toast. That's a general task that very nearly any human (intelligent or otherwise) can do. If we define "general" as tasks with text input and output we are severely restricting the domain.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    There are millions of humans who can't make toast and will never be able to. At any rate, no it's not really limiting. https://tidybot.cs.princeton.edu/ https://tidybot.cs.princeton.edu/ https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/rt-2-new-model-translates-vision-and-language-into-action/ https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/rt-2-new-model-transla... https://wayve.ai/thinking/lingo-natural-language-autonomous-driving/ https://wayve.ai/thinking/lingo-natural-language-autonomous-...
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Arguments like yours are why I regard "generality" (certainly in the context of AGI) as a continuum rather than a boolean. AlphaZero is more general than AlphaGo Zero, as the former can do three games and the latter only one. All LLMs are much more general than those game playing models, even if they aren't so wildly superhuman on any specific skill, and `gpt-4-vision-preview` is more general than any 3.5 model as 4 can take image inputs while the 3.5's can't.
    - seanhunter 3y ago
      Yes. If you read "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" this idea of generality being a continuum is a point that Turing makes actually (albeit in different words). What constitutes generality of an AI is really going to be very sensitive to your metric and the assessment is going to vary a lot from observer to observer.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
ChatGPT is the most general system ever created and packaged. You can throw arbitrary problems at it and get half-decent solutions for most of them. It can summarize and expand text, translate both explicitly and internally[0], play games, plan, code, transcode, draw, cook, rhyme, solve riddles and challenges, do basic reasoning, and many, many other things. Whether one is leaning more towards "stochastic parrot" or more towards "sparks of AGI" - it's undeniable that it's a general system. -- [0] - The whole "fine-tune LLM on a super-specific task but only in language X (which is not English), its performance for that task improves in languages other than X" part, indicating it's not just learning tokens, but the meanings behind them too.
- Barrin92 3y ago
  >it's undeniable that it's a general system. it's very deniable, as Yann Lecun correctly pointed out, it can't even walk up a set of stairs (https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1721648856260050970 https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1721648856260050970). It can't cook, it can talk about cooking. It wouldn't be able to get a pan out of a drawer. I know all we do these days is produce text tokens on the internet, but it is in fact in itself a domain specific task. If you can talk about opening a can of beans you're an LLM. If you can do that and actually open the physical can we may be a little bit further towards general intelligence. We don't even have a full self driving system, the limited systems we have are not LLMs, and there isn't even a system on the Horizon that can drive and talk to you about the news and cook you a dinner.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    If that was a valid criticism of its intelligence, Stephen Hawking would have spent most of life categorised as a vegetable. Also: > We don't even have a full self driving system, debatable given the accident rate of the systems we do have > the limited systems we have are not LLMs, they tautologically are LLMs > and there isn't even a system on the Horizon that can drive and talk to you about the news and cook you a dinner There's at least four cooking robots in use, and that's just narrow AI and used to show off. Here's one from 14 years back: https://youtu.be/nv7VUqPE8AE https://youtu.be/nv7VUqPE8AE And 5 years back: https://youtu.be/CAJJbMs0tos https://youtu.be/CAJJbMs0tos And two years back: https://youtu.be/fNpBDwYLi-Q https://youtu.be/fNpBDwYLi-Q And (uploaded) this year: https://youtu.be/r5GHWRhpzlw https://youtu.be/r5GHWRhpzlw There's also a few research models for general household robotics from Google and whichever of Musk's companies is doing that robot of his. And here's another general learning-from-demonstrations system from Cambridge university from this year: https://youtu.be/EiIAN03MsRM https://youtu.be/EiIAN03MsRM

famouswaffles 3y ago

That's not a category error. GPT is general. It is able to perform many tasks (Creative Writing, playing Chess, Poker and other games, language translation, Code, robot piloting) etc

seanhunter 3y ago
But not make toast. That's a general task that very nearly any human (intelligent or otherwise) can do. If we define "general" as tasks with text input and output we are severely restricting the domain.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  There are millions of humans who can't make toast and will never be able to. At any rate, no it's not really limiting. https://tidybot.cs.princeton.edu/ https://tidybot.cs.princeton.edu/ https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/rt-2-new-model-translates-vision-and-language-into-action/ https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/rt-2-new-model-transla... https://wayve.ai/thinking/lingo-natural-language-autonomous-driving/ https://wayve.ai/thinking/lingo-natural-language-autonomous-...
- ben_w 3y ago
  Arguments like yours are why I regard "generality" (certainly in the context of AGI) as a continuum rather than a boolean. AlphaZero is more general than AlphaGo Zero, as the former can do three games and the latter only one. All LLMs are much more general than those game playing models, even if they aren't so wildly superhuman on any specific skill, and `gpt-4-vision-preview` is more general than any 3.5 model as 4 can take image inputs while the 3.5's can't.
  - seanhunter 3y ago
    Yes. If you read "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" this idea of generality being a continuum is a point that Turing makes actually (albeit in different words). What constitutes generality of an AI is really going to be very sensitive to your metric and the assessment is going to vary a lot from observer to observer.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

ChatGPT is the most general system ever created and packaged. You can throw arbitrary problems at it and get half-decent solutions for most of them. It can summarize and expand text, translate both explicitly and internally[0], play games, plan, code, transcode, draw, cook, rhyme, solve riddles and challenges, do basic reasoning, and many, many other things. Whether one is leaning more towards "stochastic parrot" or more towards "sparks of AGI" - it's undeniable that it's a general system. -- [0] - The whole "fine-tune LLM on a super-specific task but only in language X (which is not English), its performance for that task improves in languages other than X" part, indicating it's not just learning tokens, but the meanings behind them too.

Barrin92 3y ago
>it's undeniable that it's a general system. it's very deniable, as Yann Lecun correctly pointed out, it can't even walk up a set of stairs (https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1721648856260050970 https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1721648856260050970). It can't cook, it can talk about cooking. It wouldn't be able to get a pan out of a drawer. I know all we do these days is produce text tokens on the internet, but it is in fact in itself a domain specific task. If you can talk about opening a can of beans you're an LLM. If you can do that and actually open the physical can we may be a little bit further towards general intelligence. We don't even have a full self driving system, the limited systems we have are not LLMs, and there isn't even a system on the Horizon that can drive and talk to you about the news and cook you a dinner.
- ben_w 3y ago
  If that was a valid criticism of its intelligence, Stephen Hawking would have spent most of life categorised as a vegetable. Also: > We don't even have a full self driving system, debatable given the accident rate of the systems we do have > the limited systems we have are not LLMs, they tautologically are LLMs > and there isn't even a system on the Horizon that can drive and talk to you about the news and cook you a dinner There's at least four cooking robots in use, and that's just narrow AI and used to show off. Here's one from 14 years back: https://youtu.be/nv7VUqPE8AE https://youtu.be/nv7VUqPE8AE And 5 years back: https://youtu.be/CAJJbMs0tos https://youtu.be/CAJJbMs0tos And two years back: https://youtu.be/fNpBDwYLi-Q https://youtu.be/fNpBDwYLi-Q And (uploaded) this year: https://youtu.be/r5GHWRhpzlw https://youtu.be/r5GHWRhpzlw There's also a few research models for general household robotics from Google and whichever of Musk's companies is doing that robot of his. And here's another general learning-from-demonstrations system from Cambridge university from this year: https://youtu.be/EiIAN03MsRM https://youtu.be/EiIAN03MsRM