3 ms·

>It could solve those, the reason it can't is that it doesn't understand its own limitations, ie it has no self awareness. I don't think Humans understand thei

>It could solve those, the reason it can't is that it doesn't understand its own limitations, ie it has no self awareness. I don't think Humans understand their limitations very well at all. We plan around limitations we observe, not necessarily limitations that are present. There are many surprising limitations only recently uncovered by advances in neuroscience. I'm not sure humans would qualify as self aware by your criteria. >if an AI model can't even do that how can it be considered an AGI? By being artificial and generally intelligent. I don't see anything about "self-awareness" (ill-defined as it may be) anywhere in that acronym.

Jensson 3y ago
> By being artificial and generally intelligent. I don't see anything about "self-awareness" (ill-defined as it may be) anywhere in that acronym. I said they need to be aware of their own limitations, that is very well defined. Humans might not be aware of all our limitations, but we are aware of a lot of them and that lets us work around them. Working around your own limitations is necessary for AGI, otherwise there are many trivial problems you can't solve. It is possible that you can make many human crafted strategies and that goes far enough, but I doubt it since trying to make human crafted examples never has resulted in AGI advancements just allowing the bot to solve a specific problem well.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  >I said they need to be aware of their own limitations, that is very well defined. You seemed to imply that this "awareness" was some inherent ability of humans but it's very clearly not. If it were, we wouldn't be a lot more aware of these limitations today than even a few decades past. and if all the records we kept vanished in an instant today then the next generations of humans would be a lot less aware. This "awareness" you are talking about is little more than accumulated knowledge. By the realistic definition of 'aware of what is observed', i fail to see how LLMs don't demonstrate this.

Jensson 3y ago

> By being artificial and generally intelligent. I don't see anything about "self-awareness" (ill-defined as it may be) anywhere in that acronym. I said they need to be aware of their own limitations, that is very well defined. Humans might not be aware of all our limitations, but we are aware of a lot of them and that lets us work around them. Working around your own limitations is necessary for AGI, otherwise there are many trivial problems you can't solve. It is possible that you can make many human crafted strategies and that goes far enough, but I doubt it since trying to make human crafted examples never has resulted in AGI advancements just allowing the bot to solve a specific problem well.

famouswaffles 3y ago
>I said they need to be aware of their own limitations, that is very well defined. You seemed to imply that this "awareness" was some inherent ability of humans but it's very clearly not. If it were, we wouldn't be a lot more aware of these limitations today than even a few decades past. and if all the records we kept vanished in an instant today then the next generations of humans would be a lot less aware. This "awareness" you are talking about is little more than accumulated knowledge. By the realistic definition of 'aware of what is observed', i fail to see how LLMs don't demonstrate this.