4 ms·

> I think there’s a huge assumption here that more LLM will lead to AGI. I'm not sure you realize this, but that is literally what this article was written to

by ctoth 3y ago

> I think there’s a huge assumption here that more LLM will lead to AGI. I'm not sure you realize this, but that is literally what this article was written to explore! I feel like you just autocompleted what you believe about large language models in this thread, rather than engaging with the article. Engagement might look like "I hold the skeptic position because of X, Y, and Z, but I see that the other position has some really good, hard-to-answer points." Instead, we just got the first thing that came to your mind talking about AI. In fact, am I talking to a person?

jeremyjh 3y ago
I feel like an LLM would do a much better job than GP.
- berniedurfee 3y ago
  Lol, at least then your comment wouldn’t have bothered me so much!
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jeremyjh 3y ago
    I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, it wasn't my intention. For what its worth, I actually think there is a good chance that you are right - that there is something missing in LLMs that still won't be present in bigger LLMs. I mostly meant that an LLM would be more organized around the source material and address specific points. I actually asked ChatGPT 4 to do so, and it produced the sort of reasonable but unremarkable stuff I've come to expect from it.
    - berniedurfee 3y ago
      Ah, gotcha, no worries, thanks for the reply!
berniedurfee 3y ago
Lol, yes, in fact, I was reacting to the article. The point I was trying to make is that I think better LLMs won’t lead to AGI. The article focused on the mechanics and technology, but I feel that’s missing the point. The point being, AGI is not going to be a direct outcome of LLM development, regardless of the efficiency or volume of data.
- ctoth 3y ago
  I can interpret this in a couple different ways, and I want to make sure I am engaging with what you said, and not with what I thought you said. > I think better LLMs won’t lead to AGI. Does this mean you believe that the Transformer architecture won't be an eventual part of AGI? (possibly true, though I wouldn't bet on it) Does this mean that you see no path for GPT-4 to become an AGI if we just leave it alone sitting on its server? I could certainly agree with that. Does this mean that something like large language models will not be used for their ability to model the world, or plan, or even just complete patterns as does our own System one in an eventual AGI architecture? I would have a lot more trouble agreeing with that. In general, it seems like these sequence modelers that actually work right is a big primitive we didn't have in 2016 and they certainly seem to me as an important step. Something that will carry us far past human-level, whatever that means for textual tasks. To bring it back to the article, probably pure scale isn't quite the secret sauce, but it's a good 80-90% and the rest will come from the increased interest, the shear number of human-level intelligences now working on this problem. Too bad we haven't scaled safety nearly as fast though!
  - berniedurfee 3y ago
    Yes, I suppose my assertion is that LLMs may be a step toward our understanding of what is required to create AGI. But, the technology (the algorithms) will not be part of the eventual solution. Having said that, I do agree that LLMs will be transformative technology. As important perhaps as the transistor or the wheel. I think LLMs will accelerate our ability as a species to solve problems even more than the calculator, computer or internet has. I think the boost in human capability provided by LLMs will help us more rapidly discover the true nature of reasoning, intelligence and consciousness. But, like the wheel, transistor, calculator, computer and internet; I feel strongly that LLMs will prove to be just another tool and not a foundational technology for AGI.
dullcrisp 3y ago
Why does it matter?
joe_the_user 3y ago
I'm not sure you realize this, but that is literally what this article was written to explore! Yeah but it's "exploration" answers all the reasonable objections by just extrapolating vague "smartness" (EDITED [1]). "LLMs seem smart, more data will make 'em smarter..." If apparent intelligence were the only measure of where things are going, we could be certain GPT-5 or whatever would reach AGI. But I don't many people think that's the case. The various critics of LLMs like Gary Marcus make the point that while LLMs increase in ability each iteration, they continue to be weak in particular areas. My favorite measure is "query intelligence" versus "task accomplishment intelligence". Current "AI" (deep learning/transformers/etc) systems are great at query intelligence but don't seem to scale in their "task accomplishment intelligence" at the same rate. (Notice "baby AGI", ChatGPT+self-talk, fail to produce actual task intelligence). [1] Edited, original "seemed remarkably unenlightening. Lots of generalities, on-the-one-hand-on-the-other descriptions". Actually, reading more closely the article does raise good objections - but still doesn't answer them well imo.
- berniedurfee 3y ago
  I’ve also heard it said that “apparent” intelligence is good enough to be called “real” intelligence if it’s indistinguishable from the real thing. That’s where I have a strong feeling that we’re missing the true meaning of intelligence, reasoning and consciousness. As you said, we may very well be a couple iterations away from a chatbot that is truly indistinguishable from a human, but I still strongly assert that even a perfectly coherent chatbot is nothing more than an automaton and we humans are not automatons. The fact that a couple replies in this thread made me feel defensive and a bit discouraged with their condescending tone is to me an internal reaction that an LLM or similar system will never have. Maybe an appropriate emotional reaction can be calculated and simulated, but I think the nature of the experience itself is truly beyond our current comprehension. Maybe I’m grasping at the metaphysical to rationalize my fear that we’re on the cusp of understanding consciousness… and it turns out to be pretty boring and will be included with Microsoft O365 in a couple years.
  - dasil003 3y ago
    I agree with you, but I think it's more of a philosophical topic (ie. Chinese Room argument) than something that technicians working on raw LLM capabilities usually care to engage in. For them, the Turing Test and utility in applications are the most important thing. Personally, I don't think we can construct an equivalent intelligence to a human out of silicon. That's not say AGI is unachievable or that it can't surpass human intelligence and be superficially undistinguishable from a human, but it will always be different and alien in some way. I believe our intelligence is fundamentally closer to other earth animals descended from common genetic ancestors than it can be to an artificial intelligence. As the creators of AI, we can and will paper over these differences enough to Get The Job Done™, but the uncanny valley will always be there if you know where to look.

by ctoth 3y ago

jeremyjh 3y ago

I feel like an LLM would do a much better job than GP.

berniedurfee 3y ago
Lol, at least then your comment wouldn’t have bothered me so much!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jeremyjh 3y ago
  I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, it wasn't my intention. For what its worth, I actually think there is a good chance that you are right - that there is something missing in LLMs that still won't be present in bigger LLMs. I mostly meant that an LLM would be more organized around the source material and address specific points. I actually asked ChatGPT 4 to do so, and it produced the sort of reasonable but unremarkable stuff I've come to expect from it.
  - berniedurfee 3y ago
    Ah, gotcha, no worries, thanks for the reply!

berniedurfee 3y ago

Lol, yes, in fact, I was reacting to the article. The point I was trying to make is that I think better LLMs won’t lead to AGI. The article focused on the mechanics and technology, but I feel that’s missing the point. The point being, AGI is not going to be a direct outcome of LLM development, regardless of the efficiency or volume of data.

ctoth 3y ago
I can interpret this in a couple different ways, and I want to make sure I am engaging with what you said, and not with what I thought you said. > I think better LLMs won’t lead to AGI. Does this mean you believe that the Transformer architecture won't be an eventual part of AGI? (possibly true, though I wouldn't bet on it) Does this mean that you see no path for GPT-4 to become an AGI if we just leave it alone sitting on its server? I could certainly agree with that. Does this mean that something like large language models will not be used for their ability to model the world, or plan, or even just complete patterns as does our own System one in an eventual AGI architecture? I would have a lot more trouble agreeing with that. In general, it seems like these sequence modelers that actually work right is a big primitive we didn't have in 2016 and they certainly seem to me as an important step. Something that will carry us far past human-level, whatever that means for textual tasks. To bring it back to the article, probably pure scale isn't quite the secret sauce, but it's a good 80-90% and the rest will come from the increased interest, the shear number of human-level intelligences now working on this problem. Too bad we haven't scaled safety nearly as fast though!
- berniedurfee 3y ago
  Yes, I suppose my assertion is that LLMs may be a step toward our understanding of what is required to create AGI. But, the technology (the algorithms) will not be part of the eventual solution. Having said that, I do agree that LLMs will be transformative technology. As important perhaps as the transistor or the wheel. I think LLMs will accelerate our ability as a species to solve problems even more than the calculator, computer or internet has. I think the boost in human capability provided by LLMs will help us more rapidly discover the true nature of reasoning, intelligence and consciousness. But, like the wheel, transistor, calculator, computer and internet; I feel strongly that LLMs will prove to be just another tool and not a foundational technology for AGI.

dullcrisp 3y ago

Why does it matter?

joe_the_user 3y ago

I'm not sure you realize this, but that is literally what this article was written to explore! Yeah but it's "exploration" answers all the reasonable objections by just extrapolating vague "smartness" (EDITED [1]). "LLMs seem smart, more data will make 'em smarter..." If apparent intelligence were the only measure of where things are going, we could be certain GPT-5 or whatever would reach AGI. But I don't many people think that's the case. The various critics of LLMs like Gary Marcus make the point that while LLMs increase in ability each iteration, they continue to be weak in particular areas. My favorite measure is "query intelligence" versus "task accomplishment intelligence". Current "AI" (deep learning/transformers/etc) systems are great at query intelligence but don't seem to scale in their "task accomplishment intelligence" at the same rate. (Notice "baby AGI", ChatGPT+self-talk, fail to produce actual task intelligence). [1] Edited, original "seemed remarkably unenlightening. Lots of generalities, on-the-one-hand-on-the-other descriptions". Actually, reading more closely the article does raise good objections - but still doesn't answer them well imo.

berniedurfee 3y ago
I’ve also heard it said that “apparent” intelligence is good enough to be called “real” intelligence if it’s indistinguishable from the real thing. That’s where I have a strong feeling that we’re missing the true meaning of intelligence, reasoning and consciousness. As you said, we may very well be a couple iterations away from a chatbot that is truly indistinguishable from a human, but I still strongly assert that even a perfectly coherent chatbot is nothing more than an automaton and we humans are not automatons. The fact that a couple replies in this thread made me feel defensive and a bit discouraged with their condescending tone is to me an internal reaction that an LLM or similar system will never have. Maybe an appropriate emotional reaction can be calculated and simulated, but I think the nature of the experience itself is truly beyond our current comprehension. Maybe I’m grasping at the metaphysical to rationalize my fear that we’re on the cusp of understanding consciousness… and it turns out to be pretty boring and will be included with Microsoft O365 in a couple years.
- dasil003 3y ago
  I agree with you, but I think it's more of a philosophical topic (ie. Chinese Room argument) than something that technicians working on raw LLM capabilities usually care to engage in. For them, the Turing Test and utility in applications are the most important thing. Personally, I don't think we can construct an equivalent intelligence to a human out of silicon. That's not say AGI is unachievable or that it can't surpass human intelligence and be superficially undistinguishable from a human, but it will always be different and alien in some way. I believe our intelligence is fundamentally closer to other earth animals descended from common genetic ancestors than it can be to an artificial intelligence. As the creators of AI, we can and will paper over these differences enough to Get The Job Done™, but the uncanny valley will always be there if you know where to look.