4 ms·
But isn’t this also a step towards AGI? The model being able to find issues and self correct?
by PrayagBhakar 3y ago
But isn’t this also a step towards AGI? The model being able to find issues and self correct?
- mxsjoberg 3y agoYes.
- mitthrowaway2 3y agoAs described in the essay "optimality is the tiger, and agents are its teeth". https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kpPnReyBC54KESiSn/optimality-is-the-tiger-and-agents-are-its-teeth https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kpPnReyBC54KESiSn/optimality...
- bbor 3y agolol posted the same thing above. I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought that was an extremely powerful read! As someone currently trying to imbue silicon with an eternal soul, it’s very sobering.
- clbrmbr 3y agoFrom the linked LW post: > It is doing this for no greater reason than that an optimiser was brought into reach, and this is what optimisers do. > All the agent piece has to do is pump the optimality machine. It’s like putting the mic too close to the amplifier.
- graphe 3y agoWhat does AGI man to you? Is it something they define or you think is good enough, And if the latter when?
- bbor 3y agoEh regardless of all that the answer is just “yes” imo: self-improvement is a necessary step to meaningful superintelligence. Perhaps not AGI but it obviously seems like a massive help if not absolutely strictly necessary. In a way, that’s what modern multi-stage-trained foundational models already do: improve their weights intelligently. Having the same results in human readable code (what this is a first step towards) would be a lot more powerful…
- PrayagBhakar 3y agoAGI feels like a marketing term to me now. I mainly see it as just research into how can we improve and scale the current model architectures we have to be better than the last one