4 ms·
The line for AGI used to be the Turing Test. But we blew past that with current models without even blinking and came up with new requirements because we weren’
by qgin 3y ago
The line for AGI used to be the Turing Test. But we blew past that with current models without even blinking and came up with new requirements because we weren’t ready to call something AGI yet.
- keiferski 3y agoThe Turing Test was one suggestion that many philosophers and computer scientists were/are critical of - and have been critical of for decades.
- upwardbound 3y agoBut nonetheless, it was still the most famous test and was specifically set forth as an AGI test by the father of computing. People have been critical of it but there was never any other standard that was as broadly accepted as Turing's proposal.
- lamp987 3y agoNot really. Turing test was beaten by much simpler chat bots and long before than ChatGPT (which isn't A(G)I).
- lostmsu 3y agoIt really was not, or link to the "beating" result.
- Jensson 3y agoIt was in 2014. https://www.vice.com/en/article/gvyy5m/how-a-computer-beat-the-turing-test-by-pretending-to-be-a-13-year-old-boy https://www.vice.com/en/article/gvyy5m/how-a-computer-beat-t... The turing test is a shit test for general intelligence, you can game it by making the AI generate a story that is more engaging than a typical boring human would do. Those stories will get much more human votes than a regular human. Some will go off track and notice it is a dumb program, but those are the minority so on average this dumb bot will pass the turing test.
- lostmsu 3y agoThis was a severely constrained version with limited public record, so paint me skeptical. For instance there was a 5 minute limit. From the article: Simultaneous tests as specified by Alan Turing Each judge was involved in five parallel tests - so 10 conversations 30 judges took part In total 300 conversations In each five minutes a judge was communicating with both a human and a machine Each of the five machines took part in 30 tests To ensure accuracy of results, Test was independently adjudicated by Professor John Barnden, University of Birmingham, formerly head of British AI Society 5 tests in 5 minutes that's just 1 minute each. In 1 minute it would be challenging to figure out you're not talking to ELIZA.
- windowshopping 3y agoI just don't think they've come up with a definition of what AGI even is. Like, ChatGPT can do a lot, but it has no preferences, no desires, no memories, no feelings, no creativity. It's a text output calculated based on a text input combined with other text inputs. It's an extremely impressive piece of technology. But that is not a mind, that is not a consciousness. What even is AGI, really? I've been arguing with various people that we're nowhere near it, but like we don't even have an agreed-upon definition of what it is, so how can we really argue?
- lucubratory 3y agoPaper from two weeks ago by Google DeepMind putting together a very good definition that I haven't seen anyone in the field disagree with yet: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462 https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462
- CamperBob2 3y agoThey left out 7) Ability to explain why anyone who uses "Operationalizing" in a sentence is a bad person or AGI, and should feel bad
- lucubratory 3y agoI used to feel the same way, but I got convinced that it's useful. Going from "planned" to "operational" in a way that conveys the continuity of the process doesn't have a good adverb and operationalising fits the bill.
- CamperBob2 3y ago"Realizing" works pretty well. Strunk & White would've shit a pair of bricks over that. I shudder to think how "Operationalizing" would've gone over.
- voitvod 3y ago[flagged]