4 ms·

I'd simply been thinking about Large Vision Models in an annotation sense. QandA, Captioning...That sort of thing. Even though it makes so much sense, I never

I'd simply been thinking about Large Vision Models in an annotation sense. QandA, Captioning...That sort of thing. Even though it makes so much sense, I never thought about it like this. Inpainting, Object Detection, Rotation, Lighting, Segmentation, Edge Detection, Pose Estimation, Surface Normal, Colorization and much more achieved by a single model. I believe this and Codi-2(https://codi-2.github.io/ https://codi-2.github.io/) offer a glimpse of the future of Large Multimodal Models.

kaibee 3y ago
So this is artificial general intelligence, right?
- ben_w 3y ago
  The problem with the phrase "artificial general intelligence" is that everyone is arguing about the definition of all three words, and has a different threshold for the boolean pass/fail boundary.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  General Intelligence is a gradient, not a hard on/off. Obviously, these are machines so artificial. They're certainly not narrow in scope or abilities so general. They perform tasks we consider intelligent. So...sure. Like ENIAC, i imagine we'll build or have built agi well before everyone can agree it is so.
BoiledCabbage 3y ago
One of the things sci-fi really seemed to get right is that we will have AGI long before we'll have agreement that it is actually AGI. People will keep finding some small case or reason why not to call it AGI. And then finally once that last case is knocked down and we have agreement on a definition, we'll realize we crossed that threshold a "long" while back. And I'm not saying we have AGI now, just that it's now clear to me how this process will play out. (Where "long" in AI development timeliness probably doesn't mean the same thing "long" meant even in the 2010s.)
- MorbidCuriosity 3y ago
  I think the last hurdles will be sentience and a theory of the mind. Theory of the mind is probably something that a LM could predict given enough data, but sentience? I don't think we understand enough about our own sentience for us to create it in a machine.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    LLMs can already predict theory of mind in text and keep good track of character motivations and knowledge in a story.
  - kenmorechalfant 3y ago
    It goes back to the old question of whether matter is fundamental and consciousness emerges from it or the other way around. My inclination is the latter, by way of Descartes. "I think therefore I am." If you can think "I am me" then you know with certainty that your first person identity exists but all other information that comes to you through your senses will always be an incomplete picture of the material universe. I think this is the strongest argument why consciousness precedes matter (or pervades through all matter, depending how you look at it). If sentience is a fundamental property of the universe, the way I see it, all matter shares the same soul. That makes it perfectly logical for a machine that mimics the pathways of the brain to behave just like a brain, to me.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > I don't think we understand enough about our own sentience for us to create it in a machine. Invention preceding understanding is the norm, not the exception. We created fire before understanding chemistry, and we constantly use pharmaceuticals without really understanding how they work. Invention first, then theory comes along to explain and generalize. For all we know, sentience is a necessary side-effect of semantic processing of any kind, in which case LLMs already have a form of sentience. So yes, you're right that we don't understand our own sentience. In fact, we understand so little that it could literally be staring us in the face right now and we don't realize it.
  - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

kaibee 3y ago

So this is artificial general intelligence, right?

ben_w 3y ago
The problem with the phrase "artificial general intelligence" is that everyone is arguing about the definition of all three words, and has a different threshold for the boolean pass/fail boundary.
famouswaffles 3y ago
General Intelligence is a gradient, not a hard on/off. Obviously, these are machines so artificial. They're certainly not narrow in scope or abilities so general. They perform tasks we consider intelligent. So...sure. Like ENIAC, i imagine we'll build or have built agi well before everyone can agree it is so.

BoiledCabbage 3y ago

One of the things sci-fi really seemed to get right is that we will have AGI long before we'll have agreement that it is actually AGI. People will keep finding some small case or reason why not to call it AGI. And then finally once that last case is knocked down and we have agreement on a definition, we'll realize we crossed that threshold a "long" while back. And I'm not saying we have AGI now, just that it's now clear to me how this process will play out. (Where "long" in AI development timeliness probably doesn't mean the same thing "long" meant even in the 2010s.)

MorbidCuriosity 3y ago
I think the last hurdles will be sentience and a theory of the mind. Theory of the mind is probably something that a LM could predict given enough data, but sentience? I don't think we understand enough about our own sentience for us to create it in a machine.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  LLMs can already predict theory of mind in text and keep good track of character motivations and knowledge in a story.
- kenmorechalfant 3y ago
  It goes back to the old question of whether matter is fundamental and consciousness emerges from it or the other way around. My inclination is the latter, by way of Descartes. "I think therefore I am." If you can think "I am me" then you know with certainty that your first person identity exists but all other information that comes to you through your senses will always be an incomplete picture of the material universe. I think this is the strongest argument why consciousness precedes matter (or pervades through all matter, depending how you look at it). If sentience is a fundamental property of the universe, the way I see it, all matter shares the same soul. That makes it perfectly logical for a machine that mimics the pathways of the brain to behave just like a brain, to me.
- naasking 3y ago
  > I don't think we understand enough about our own sentience for us to create it in a machine. Invention preceding understanding is the norm, not the exception. We created fire before understanding chemistry, and we constantly use pharmaceuticals without really understanding how they work. Invention first, then theory comes along to explain and generalize. For all we know, sentience is a necessary side-effect of semantic processing of any kind, in which case LLMs already have a form of sentience. So yes, you're right that we don't understand our own sentience. In fact, we understand so little that it could literally be staring us in the face right now and we don't realize it.
- 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]