3 ms·

> 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 creat

> 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 ?
    - wavemode 3y ago
      > or is this just a vague "i'll know it when i see it" assertion No, it's actually exceptionally easy to quantify. Take a look at the current leaderboard for LLM reasoning capabilities: https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_leaderboard https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_leaderb...
      - famouswaffles 3y ago
        The state of the art model isn't even on that list. Okay, you've at least given me numbers. You're still not answering my question. Which number signals agi ? Let's look at the top model in that list (which again isn't close to the best performing LLM) that you say isn't agi. so are you telling me that every human can do those tests and perform better than every model on that list. Is that what you are saying ? because i can tell you right now you're wrong. Now lets see how GPT-4 performs. ARC - 96.3%, MMLU - 86.4%, HellaSwag - 95.3%, WinoGrande - 87.5%, GSM-8K - 92.0%, TruthfulQA - 60% Ave - 86.25% Is this worse than every human that can take these tests. Is this even worse than most ? I can tell you it's not. So again, why is GPT-4 not agi ?
        lossolo 3y ago
        > Is this worse than every human that can take these tests. Is this even worse than most ? I can tell you it's not. So again, why is GPT-4 not agi ? https://chat.openai.com/share/4a92c752-b5bb-4a07-beed-f5778695c67f https://chat.openai.com/share/4a92c752-b5bb-4a07-beed-f57786...

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 ?
  - wavemode 3y ago
    > or is this just a vague "i'll know it when i see it" assertion No, it's actually exceptionally easy to quantify. Take a look at the current leaderboard for LLM reasoning capabilities: https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_leaderboard https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_leaderb...
    - famouswaffles 3y ago
      The state of the art model isn't even on that list. Okay, you've at least given me numbers. You're still not answering my question. Which number signals agi ? Let's look at the top model in that list (which again isn't close to the best performing LLM) that you say isn't agi. so are you telling me that every human can do those tests and perform better than every model on that list. Is that what you are saying ? because i can tell you right now you're wrong. Now lets see how GPT-4 performs. ARC - 96.3%, MMLU - 86.4%, HellaSwag - 95.3%, WinoGrande - 87.5%, GSM-8K - 92.0%, TruthfulQA - 60% Ave - 86.25% Is this worse than every human that can take these tests. Is this even worse than most ? I can tell you it's not. So again, why is GPT-4 not agi ?
      - lossolo 3y ago
        > Is this worse than every human that can take these tests. Is this even worse than most ? I can tell you it's not. So again, why is GPT-4 not agi ? https://chat.openai.com/share/4a92c752-b5bb-4a07-beed-f5778695c67f https://chat.openai.com/share/4a92c752-b5bb-4a07-beed-f57786...