4 ms·

It seems like there's a lot of people who think we've reached AGI, but then they use AI for a while and realize they were mistaken. If they're journalists, they

It seems like there's a lot of people who think we've reached AGI, but then they use AI for a while and realize they were mistaken. If they're journalists, they write an article about it. LLMs are good at imitating human responses. On the surface level there's the illusion you're communicating with some intelligence, but then you realize the truth: LLMs are an inch deep and a mile wide. That's not to say they aren't incredibly useful, the real problem is unrealistic expectations and over-hype.

ben_w 3y ago
All three letters of AGI mean different things to different people. As it happens, ChatGPT meets my pre-existing definition of AGI, though with a low value for the "I". That it isn't IQ 100 is good, because, given what it read during training, given how broad it is, if it was that level by every measure, then half the world would have become almost instantly unemployable even if minimum wage was reduced to $2/day.
- calibas 3y ago
  Replace "AGI" with the idea of an AI that is able to perform tasks in a way that compares to a regular human being. That's what people are talking about, we're not there yet, and I think all the semantics over AI/AGI/"General Intelligence" is just muddying the waters. There's people like you, saying ChatGPT is AGI, while to me it's clearly not, and this is simply because we're using different definitions of "general intelligence". If you really generalize intelligence, ChatGPT fails miserably compared to a human, if you narrow intelligence to certain specific tasks, ChatGPT performs as well, or better, than your average human.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    The responses it gives me are of a higher standard than most of the comments on the internet, while being lower than the standard necessary to rely on it. It is the breadth of skills, that generality, which impresses me the most; the depth is… only impressive in comparison to the previous state of the art. This isn't like AlphaZero being wildly superhuman at a few board games and useless at anything else, which is the kind of thing I'm used to from previous breakthroughs.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      Average humans are much smarter than average internet comments, since comments are written without much thought put into them. So you can't judge an AI vs humans by the comments humans make. I'd argue that this AI is better than humans at making comments, but not better than humans at solving problems when the human sits down to think about it.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        I was already agreeing that AI doesn't beat a human expert thinking carefully (and hope this state of affairs lasts long enough to pay off the mortgage I'm about to get), while naturally I disagree with your claim that one cannot judge an AI vs humans by the comments humans make, on the grounds that this was basically the original Turing Test — I suspect that if anyone cared to train one to role-play as one specific human with one specific backstory instead of constantly opting out of any personality and saying "As an AI trained by…", the better models would already pass that test.

ben_w 3y ago

All three letters of AGI mean different things to different people. As it happens, ChatGPT meets my pre-existing definition of AGI, though with a low value for the "I". That it isn't IQ 100 is good, because, given what it read during training, given how broad it is, if it was that level by every measure, then half the world would have become almost instantly unemployable even if minimum wage was reduced to $2/day.

calibas 3y ago
Replace "AGI" with the idea of an AI that is able to perform tasks in a way that compares to a regular human being. That's what people are talking about, we're not there yet, and I think all the semantics over AI/AGI/"General Intelligence" is just muddying the waters. There's people like you, saying ChatGPT is AGI, while to me it's clearly not, and this is simply because we're using different definitions of "general intelligence". If you really generalize intelligence, ChatGPT fails miserably compared to a human, if you narrow intelligence to certain specific tasks, ChatGPT performs as well, or better, than your average human.
- ben_w 3y ago
  The responses it gives me are of a higher standard than most of the comments on the internet, while being lower than the standard necessary to rely on it. It is the breadth of skills, that generality, which impresses me the most; the depth is… only impressive in comparison to the previous state of the art. This isn't like AlphaZero being wildly superhuman at a few board games and useless at anything else, which is the kind of thing I'm used to from previous breakthroughs.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Average humans are much smarter than average internet comments, since comments are written without much thought put into them. So you can't judge an AI vs humans by the comments humans make. I'd argue that this AI is better than humans at making comments, but not better than humans at solving problems when the human sits down to think about it.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      I was already agreeing that AI doesn't beat a human expert thinking carefully (and hope this state of affairs lasts long enough to pay off the mortgage I'm about to get), while naturally I disagree with your claim that one cannot judge an AI vs humans by the comments humans make, on the grounds that this was basically the original Turing Test — I suspect that if anyone cared to train one to role-play as one specific human with one specific backstory instead of constantly opting out of any personality and saying "As an AI trained by…", the better models would already pass that test.