4 ms·

> You don't need to train on the inputs(casual processes) of anything, that's what training is there to figure out. I mean... this is just obviously false. If

> You don't need to train on the inputs(casual processes) of anything, that's what training is there to figure out. I mean... this is just obviously false. If the data you're training on isn't causally predictive, you may occasionally find good-enough patterns for a particular use case (i.e. you may occasionally guess better than a coin flip which direction the stock market goes) but you aren't going to accurately model anything, and certainly not well enough to create an AGI that makes intelligent decisions. Words in sentences (and, indeed, proteins in a sequence) are causally predictive of each other - the grammar and semantics of one word tends to dictate what words are likely to surround it. So LLM's are very good at writing, and that is certainly useful! But that's just not the same as human intelligence. When someone makes an AGI out of an LLM then I'll be proven wrong, I suppose. I'm just sharing my personal view on things.

rafaelero 3y ago
Then how does ChatGPT end up providing a better/equivalent medical diagnosis than doctors (even though they are the "masters" of the causal pathways)?
famouswaffles 3y ago
Being "casually predictive" does not mean you have provided all the variables of your prediction in the data. Protein creation is not just _poof_ new proteins. There are steps and interactions and you don't need to train on all of that. Do you want a list of all the interactions of protein creation we are aware of ? >When someone makes an AGI out of an LLM then I'll be proven wrong, I suppose. I'm just sharing my personal view on things. You're going to have to define AGI first.
- wavemode 3y ago
  > Being "casually predictive" does not mean you have provided all the variables of your prediction in the data. Not sure where I claimed this. > Protein creation is not just _poof_ new proteins. Not sure where I claimed this either. > There are steps and interactions and you don't need to train on all of that. I agree with this statement as well. Have you read what I wrote? Proteins in chains can indeed be used to predict other proteins in chains, even though you never trained the model on the biological processes of protein generation. Just like words in sentences can be used to predict other words in sentences, even though you never trained the model on the neurological processes of human speech. I'm not disputing any of that. What I'm disputing is that it will eventually become an AGI. > You're going to have to define AGI first. I'm using the definition provided verbatim in the linked article: "We believe superintelligence—AI vastly smarter than humans—could be developed within the next ten years."
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    Well first you say, >I don't believe LLM's will ever become AGI, partly because I don't believe that training on the outputs of human intelligence (i.e. human-written text) will ever produce something equivalent to human intelligence. Now you say >I'm using the definition provided verbatim in the linked article: "We believe superintelligence—AI vastly smarter than humans—could be developed within the next ten years." AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is Super Intelligence. I've never seen posts moved so fast in my life. So are you not a General Intelligence then ? This is the problem with these discussions. Everyone so sure of something they can't even properly articulate. I'm asking you what a Language Model needs to do to be considered AGI and it needs to be something every human can do, else it's not a test of general intelligence.
    - wavemode 3y ago
      Calm down, buddy. Read what I wrote a bit more charitably rather than trying to score points. Obviously, a prerequisite to becoming more intelligent than a human, is to become equally intelligent as a human. I don't believe LLM's will ever be equal in intelligence to humans, ergo I also don't believe they will become superior in intelligence to human (which is how the linked article defines "AGI").
      - famouswaffles 3y ago
        >Calm down, buddy I'm not agitated. >Obviously, a prerequisite to becoming more intelligent than a human, is to become equally intelligent as a human. I don't believe LLM's will ever be equal in intelligence to humans, ergo I also don't believe they will become superior in intelligence to human (which is how the linked article defines "AGI"). You have still not answered my question. saying "equivalent to human intelligence" is easy. The real question is equivalent how ? What are you saying it needs to do ? or is this just a vague "i'll know it when i see it" assertion ? If it's so easy to say "GPT-4 is not agi" then it should be very easy to say what it can't do that disqualifies it what is it that you're looking for it to do to be called one ?

rafaelero 3y ago

Then how does ChatGPT end up providing a better/equivalent medical diagnosis than doctors (even though they are the "masters" of the causal pathways)?

famouswaffles 3y ago

Being "casually predictive" does not mean you have provided all the variables of your prediction in the data. Protein creation is not just _poof_ new proteins. There are steps and interactions and you don't need to train on all of that. Do you want a list of all the interactions of protein creation we are aware of ? >When someone makes an AGI out of an LLM then I'll be proven wrong, I suppose. I'm just sharing my personal view on things. You're going to have to define AGI first.

wavemode 3y ago
> Being "casually predictive" does not mean you have provided all the variables of your prediction in the data. Not sure where I claimed this. > Protein creation is not just _poof_ new proteins. Not sure where I claimed this either. > There are steps and interactions and you don't need to train on all of that. I agree with this statement as well. Have you read what I wrote? Proteins in chains can indeed be used to predict other proteins in chains, even though you never trained the model on the biological processes of protein generation. Just like words in sentences can be used to predict other words in sentences, even though you never trained the model on the neurological processes of human speech. I'm not disputing any of that. What I'm disputing is that it will eventually become an AGI. > You're going to have to define AGI first. I'm using the definition provided verbatim in the linked article: "We believe superintelligence—AI vastly smarter than humans—could be developed within the next ten years."
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  Well first you say, >I don't believe LLM's will ever become AGI, partly because I don't believe that training on the outputs of human intelligence (i.e. human-written text) will ever produce something equivalent to human intelligence. Now you say >I'm using the definition provided verbatim in the linked article: "We believe superintelligence—AI vastly smarter than humans—could be developed within the next ten years." AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is Super Intelligence. I've never seen posts moved so fast in my life. So are you not a General Intelligence then ? This is the problem with these discussions. Everyone so sure of something they can't even properly articulate. I'm asking you what a Language Model needs to do to be considered AGI and it needs to be something every human can do, else it's not a test of general intelligence.
  - wavemode 3y ago
    Calm down, buddy. Read what I wrote a bit more charitably rather than trying to score points. Obviously, a prerequisite to becoming more intelligent than a human, is to become equally intelligent as a human. I don't believe LLM's will ever be equal in intelligence to humans, ergo I also don't believe they will become superior in intelligence to human (which is how the linked article defines "AGI").
    - famouswaffles 3y ago
      >Calm down, buddy I'm not agitated. >Obviously, a prerequisite to becoming more intelligent than a human, is to become equally intelligent as a human. I don't believe LLM's will ever be equal in intelligence to humans, ergo I also don't believe they will become superior in intelligence to human (which is how the linked article defines "AGI"). You have still not answered my question. saying "equivalent to human intelligence" is easy. The real question is equivalent how ? What are you saying it needs to do ? or is this just a vague "i'll know it when i see it" assertion ? If it's so easy to say "GPT-4 is not agi" then it should be very easy to say what it can't do that disqualifies it what is it that you're looking for it to do to be called one ?