13 ms·

> 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 e

> 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. This is irrelevant because OpenAI's definition of AGI [1] doesn't imply similarity or equivalence to humans at all: >artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work I.e. the stated goal of this company is to put humans out of work and become the censors and gatekeepers, not to produce something human-like. >You can't model and predict the stock market just by training on the outputs of stock trading decisions (the high today, the low yesterday). You have to train on the inputs (company fundamentals, earnings, market sentiments in the news, etc.) Most of your intelligence is not actually yours. It's social in nature, obtained by distillation of generations' worth of experience, simplified and passed to you through the stored knowledge. Which is, coincidentally, what the models are being trained on. [1] https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter

Jensson 3y ago
>artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work Then we already have AGI, automated farming equipment outperforms humans in 90% of jobs*. *Jobs in 1700. As things got automated the jobs changed and we now do different things.
- edanm 3y ago
  I wouldn't call those equipment "autonomous" though, definitely not "highly autonomous". But more importantly - yes, you're right, we have built machines that are superhuman in various ways - and they have replaced most jobs. We have adapted in the past to different jobs. Some people are worried that this time we won't have any new jobs to adapt to, which is a real possibility. (Some are also worried about the inherent dangers of unaligned AGI, but that's a different issue.)
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > I wouldn't call those equipment "autonomous" though, definitely not "highly autonomous". Why? Tractors run and harvest mostly on their own. They don't do it 100% on their own, but neither did the definition above, they remove basically all human work needed from farming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvFoRk4JsPc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvFoRk4JsPc > But more importantly - yes, you're right, we have built machines that are superhuman in various ways - and they have replaced most jobs. We have adapted in the past to different jobs. My point is that I think it is a crappy definition for "AGI". I think a non-AGI agent can replace a large majority of jobs we have today, just like it has before. And maybe there will not be much more jobs average humans can do left then, but that still doesn't mean it has to be AGI.
    - kortilla 3y ago
      > Why? Tractors run and harvest mostly on their own. This is incorrect. Most tractors are still human operated. The automated ones still frequently stop and need remote operator intervention via camera review.
kortilla 3y ago
> Most of your intelligence is not actually yours. You’re confusing knowledge and intelligence
- orbital-decay 3y ago
  Compressed and abstracted knowledge is intelligence. Your intelligence is mostly formed by the quality training material, not just conditioned on it. Most of your ability to reason about the world and predict things, most of the abstractions you use, most of your emotional responses, etc. A simple concept of acceleration took the work of ancient philosophers to figure out. Even stateful counting in a positional system. Even the concept of a "concept" is not yours. Only a tiny bit of your reasoning depends on your actual biological capabilities and the work you did personally, as opposed to the humanity as a superorganism.

Jensson 3y ago

>artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work Then we already have AGI, automated farming equipment outperforms humans in 90% of jobs*. *Jobs in 1700. As things got automated the jobs changed and we now do different things.

edanm 3y ago
I wouldn't call those equipment "autonomous" though, definitely not "highly autonomous". But more importantly - yes, you're right, we have built machines that are superhuman in various ways - and they have replaced most jobs. We have adapted in the past to different jobs. Some people are worried that this time we won't have any new jobs to adapt to, which is a real possibility. (Some are also worried about the inherent dangers of unaligned AGI, but that's a different issue.)
- Jensson 3y ago
  > I wouldn't call those equipment "autonomous" though, definitely not "highly autonomous". Why? Tractors run and harvest mostly on their own. They don't do it 100% on their own, but neither did the definition above, they remove basically all human work needed from farming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvFoRk4JsPc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvFoRk4JsPc > But more importantly - yes, you're right, we have built machines that are superhuman in various ways - and they have replaced most jobs. We have adapted in the past to different jobs. My point is that I think it is a crappy definition for "AGI". I think a non-AGI agent can replace a large majority of jobs we have today, just like it has before. And maybe there will not be much more jobs average humans can do left then, but that still doesn't mean it has to be AGI.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    > Why? Tractors run and harvest mostly on their own. This is incorrect. Most tractors are still human operated. The automated ones still frequently stop and need remote operator intervention via camera review.

kortilla 3y ago

> Most of your intelligence is not actually yours. You’re confusing knowledge and intelligence

orbital-decay 3y ago
Compressed and abstracted knowledge is intelligence. Your intelligence is mostly formed by the quality training material, not just conditioned on it. Most of your ability to reason about the world and predict things, most of the abstractions you use, most of your emotional responses, etc. A simple concept of acceleration took the work of ancient philosophers to figure out. Even stateful counting in a positional system. Even the concept of a "concept" is not yours. Only a tiny bit of your reasoning depends on your actual biological capabilities and the work you did personally, as opposed to the humanity as a superorganism.