4 ms·

>ChatGPT already has more knowledge than any individual human. It has access to the same amount of knowledge that any individual human (with internet) has. >S

>ChatGPT already has more knowledge than any individual human. It has access to the same amount of knowledge that any individual human (with internet) has. >So, are we sure 'AGI' is even a thing. I'm a cognitive neuroscientist and I'm going to say no... there's no plausible path towards creating an AGI that is a true facsimile of human intelligence BUT I'd recommend looking into P-Zombies, as there will most definitely be models that approach a believable bar, people are quick to anthropomorphizise anything. >That AI can be 'self aware' rather than just high IQ and knowledgeable? I question your references to AI having a high IQ. The IQ test is, among many things, a biased and imperfect tool. Further, it's not possible for an AI to complete the full test as one component is recall. Using IQ tests to measure AI is like comparing a car's acceleration to Olympic sprinting records. My view is that AI tools are exactly that, tools. ChatGPT is mish-mash of a thesaurus and Google. It bears remembering that ChatGPT was trained on data produced by humans, volumes of text, novels, scientific articles, blogs and reddit posts. To ascribe it intelligence for its ability to algorithmically reassemble it's training data is to do a disservice to all the authors of that original work.

philomath_mn 3y ago
> It has access to the same amount of knowledge that any individual human (with internet) has. Do you have a nuanced definition of "access"? GPT is generating most responses from its own model weights, it only reaches out to the internet in certain situations (and it tells you when it is doing so). > Further, it's not possible for an AI to complete the full test as one component is recall GPT has recall during one conversation and they recently added features to recall details from previous conversations (again, unless you mean something different by "recall") > It bears remembering that ChatGPT was trained on data produced by humans, volumes of text, novels, scientific articles, blogs and reddit posts. To ascribe it intelligence for its ability to algorithmically reassemble it's training data is to do a disservice to all the authors of that original work. I don't think GPT is conscious or anything, but I'm curious what you think the distinction is between a human child learning from its environment and a computer model learning from training data. GPT has created many truly novel outputs based on what it learned from the training data. Mechanistically, how is a brain learning from data different from a computer model learning from data?
- BOOSTERHIDROGEN 3y ago
  If we really know the distinction why we don’t have another Einstein ?
- az09mugen 3y ago
  It may be the same thing to our eyes now the learning of a child vs an AI training, but I don't think they are the same, maybe in a way, but clearly not in their whole. On one hand we for sure are not a 100% understand of how exactly our human brain work and on the other hand AI is just basically a simulation, a "real life" experiment of a mathematical modelisation of what we understand of our brain. It's not because chat gpt can "talk" that makes it "more human", it's just tokenization, it predicts very well what can be the next token (word) will be, according to what is/are the previous token(s). Does your brain work like that ? I don't think so. AI is just based on statistics, and people talk/dream/fantasize of AGI/consciousness, as if the human brain was so "simple" to decode and emulate.
- Staple_Diet 3y ago
  Regarding access, OpenAI aren't very open in revealing the training dataset, but from the evidence Google found it seems to be extensive. One might assume from its responses that at minimum it would contain the entirety of Wikipedia, and countless literary works and text books. If you give me a question and 1 hour I can probably give you a similar answer to ChatGPT (especially if I can just patently copy and paste as ChatGPT often does). On the topic of recall...it's a computer model...you cannot equate its ability to recall a conversation to the ability of a human to recall a string of numbers in much the same way that calculator can't pass a maths exam. Ergo my opinion that IQ scores of ChatGPT are invalid, much like all the other multiple 'tests' that ChatGPT 'passed'. In academic circles this evidence hasn't been viewed as proof of AI awesomeness but rather the laziness of our current testing systems. On comparing AI training to the learning that occurs in a small child; if you have small children you know that there is a gulf of difference in their learning styles. Not only is a large proportion of child development devoted to acquiring coordination and gross/fine motor control (something a stationary computer doesn't require), small children will often attempt to immediately apply newly learned material to novel settings (i.e., generalise). Here we see, even in infancy, the ability for human intelligence to generalise learning from one context to another - something notably missing from our current AI models hence the OP. As pointed out by other responses, and indeed yourself when you speak of weights, our current AI tools are effectively statistical prediction tools. ChatGPT doesn't 'understand' your question in the same way a human counterpart might, but rather it responds with a string of words taken from the average of its training data on the given topic. This is extremely evident when ChatGPT is probed on topics of which you have an advanced understanding. I used ChatGPT 4 extensively last year, and now only use the free version sparingly. During that time I routinely experienced hallucinations in responses, erroneous information and downright mistakes in its coding responses. The extent of its utility to myself now is that it can restructure a paragraph in a few different ways (that still needs editing to adjust the verbosity), or provide 3 wrong and possibly one right answer to a coding problem. Essentially it saves me spending time on editing my reports and searching StackOverflow/Exchange...apart from those tasks it's essentially your buddy who thinks he knows a lot about a lot but ends up only knowing a little, and even then it's mostly inaccurate. What is more interesting, and relevant to the OP topic, is the speed with which humans have become accustomed to using AI tools to augment their abilities, flexing their ability to generalise learning across contents, almost like some kind of generalised intelligence

philomath_mn 3y ago

> It has access to the same amount of knowledge that any individual human (with internet) has. Do you have a nuanced definition of "access"? GPT is generating most responses from its own model weights, it only reaches out to the internet in certain situations (and it tells you when it is doing so). > Further, it's not possible for an AI to complete the full test as one component is recall GPT has recall during one conversation and they recently added features to recall details from previous conversations (again, unless you mean something different by "recall") > It bears remembering that ChatGPT was trained on data produced by humans, volumes of text, novels, scientific articles, blogs and reddit posts. To ascribe it intelligence for its ability to algorithmically reassemble it's training data is to do a disservice to all the authors of that original work. I don't think GPT is conscious or anything, but I'm curious what you think the distinction is between a human child learning from its environment and a computer model learning from training data. GPT has created many truly novel outputs based on what it learned from the training data. Mechanistically, how is a brain learning from data different from a computer model learning from data?

BOOSTERHIDROGEN 3y ago
If we really know the distinction why we don’t have another Einstein ?
az09mugen 3y ago
It may be the same thing to our eyes now the learning of a child vs an AI training, but I don't think they are the same, maybe in a way, but clearly not in their whole. On one hand we for sure are not a 100% understand of how exactly our human brain work and on the other hand AI is just basically a simulation, a "real life" experiment of a mathematical modelisation of what we understand of our brain. It's not because chat gpt can "talk" that makes it "more human", it's just tokenization, it predicts very well what can be the next token (word) will be, according to what is/are the previous token(s). Does your brain work like that ? I don't think so. AI is just based on statistics, and people talk/dream/fantasize of AGI/consciousness, as if the human brain was so "simple" to decode and emulate.
Staple_Diet 3y ago
Regarding access, OpenAI aren't very open in revealing the training dataset, but from the evidence Google found it seems to be extensive. One might assume from its responses that at minimum it would contain the entirety of Wikipedia, and countless literary works and text books. If you give me a question and 1 hour I can probably give you a similar answer to ChatGPT (especially if I can just patently copy and paste as ChatGPT often does). On the topic of recall...it's a computer model...you cannot equate its ability to recall a conversation to the ability of a human to recall a string of numbers in much the same way that calculator can't pass a maths exam. Ergo my opinion that IQ scores of ChatGPT are invalid, much like all the other multiple 'tests' that ChatGPT 'passed'. In academic circles this evidence hasn't been viewed as proof of AI awesomeness but rather the laziness of our current testing systems. On comparing AI training to the learning that occurs in a small child; if you have small children you know that there is a gulf of difference in their learning styles. Not only is a large proportion of child development devoted to acquiring coordination and gross/fine motor control (something a stationary computer doesn't require), small children will often attempt to immediately apply newly learned material to novel settings (i.e., generalise). Here we see, even in infancy, the ability for human intelligence to generalise learning from one context to another - something notably missing from our current AI models hence the OP. As pointed out by other responses, and indeed yourself when you speak of weights, our current AI tools are effectively statistical prediction tools. ChatGPT doesn't 'understand' your question in the same way a human counterpart might, but rather it responds with a string of words taken from the average of its training data on the given topic. This is extremely evident when ChatGPT is probed on topics of which you have an advanced understanding. I used ChatGPT 4 extensively last year, and now only use the free version sparingly. During that time I routinely experienced hallucinations in responses, erroneous information and downright mistakes in its coding responses. The extent of its utility to myself now is that it can restructure a paragraph in a few different ways (that still needs editing to adjust the verbosity), or provide 3 wrong and possibly one right answer to a coding problem. Essentially it saves me spending time on editing my reports and searching StackOverflow/Exchange...apart from those tasks it's essentially your buddy who thinks he knows a lot about a lot but ends up only knowing a little, and even then it's mostly inaccurate. What is more interesting, and relevant to the OP topic, is the speed with which humans have become accustomed to using AI tools to augment their abilities, flexing their ability to generalise learning across contents, almost like some kind of generalised intelligence