3 ms·

I usually take AGI to mean what it says literally - simply an AI with very general training. I think that description already applies to the latest crop of LLM

I usually take AGI to mean what it says literally - simply an AI with very general training. I think that description already applies to the latest crop of LLM models. Taking it to mean some nebulous sentient entity with a sense of self, I doubt we'll see in our lifetimes. We don't even understand how our own "souls" work.

idontpost 3y ago
[dead]
maleldil 3y ago
> I think that description already applies to the latest crop of LLM models I think you're using a completely different definition from everyone else.
jacquesm 3y ago
> I usually take AGI to mean what it says literally - simply an AI with very general training. That's clever but it doesn't help to start redefining terms that are the basis for a discussion with others who use that term in a different and more generally accepted way. General doesn't mean 'generally trained' it specifically means that it does not require training for a particular task in order to figure it out. That implies that it may not require training at all and that if it is trained the training isn't necessarily general but that the AI can extract useful patterns from training on completely different subjects and apply them to the problem at hand. This is subtly but crucially importantly different from 'AI with very general training'.
- foobarian 3y ago
  > This is subtly but crucially importantly different from 'AI with very general training'. I am not being as precise on the Internet as I would be if this was a paper perhaps, and for that I apologize :-) However, just reading the top comment chain on this story, and other discussions elsewhere, I think there is a lot of cross-talk where AGI is being confused for sapient AI. I don't get the sense that there is a definition as generally accepted as we would like.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That's fair, but it's a big step to using a term in a way that it clearly isn't meant to be used (or at least, that's how I perceive it). The fact that we continuously seem to redefine what "AI" means implies that we also redefine what "AGI" means so it's not as if you are alone in this. By my 1980's standards we have AGI but the degree of "I" is still below human level, by my 2024 standards we do not have AGI just yet but what we do have is already so powerful that I'm not even sure to what extent it matters. Weaponizing what's there today already has the potential to destabilize our societies, having an even more powerful version of this (or just a faster one of the current crop) will change the world in ways that are hard to foresee or predict.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  ChatGPT can do task with 0 shot prompting. You can ask it to do something and it will attempt to do it without you having to train it for the task you want to do. It's not like it has a list of 100 built in tasks it can do, you can make up whatever task you want.

idontpost 3y ago

[dead]

maleldil 3y ago

> I think that description already applies to the latest crop of LLM models I think you're using a completely different definition from everyone else.

jacquesm 3y ago

> I usually take AGI to mean what it says literally - simply an AI with very general training. That's clever but it doesn't help to start redefining terms that are the basis for a discussion with others who use that term in a different and more generally accepted way. General doesn't mean 'generally trained' it specifically means that it does not require training for a particular task in order to figure it out. That implies that it may not require training at all and that if it is trained the training isn't necessarily general but that the AI can extract useful patterns from training on completely different subjects and apply them to the problem at hand. This is subtly but crucially importantly different from 'AI with very general training'.

foobarian 3y ago
> This is subtly but crucially importantly different from 'AI with very general training'. I am not being as precise on the Internet as I would be if this was a paper perhaps, and for that I apologize :-) However, just reading the top comment chain on this story, and other discussions elsewhere, I think there is a lot of cross-talk where AGI is being confused for sapient AI. I don't get the sense that there is a definition as generally accepted as we would like.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That's fair, but it's a big step to using a term in a way that it clearly isn't meant to be used (or at least, that's how I perceive it). The fact that we continuously seem to redefine what "AI" means implies that we also redefine what "AGI" means so it's not as if you are alone in this. By my 1980's standards we have AGI but the degree of "I" is still below human level, by my 2024 standards we do not have AGI just yet but what we do have is already so powerful that I'm not even sure to what extent it matters. Weaponizing what's there today already has the potential to destabilize our societies, having an even more powerful version of this (or just a faster one of the current crop) will change the world in ways that are hard to foresee or predict.
charcircuit 3y ago
ChatGPT can do task with 0 shot prompting. You can ask it to do something and it will attempt to do it without you having to train it for the task you want to do. It's not like it has a list of 100 built in tasks it can do, you can make up whatever task you want.