4 ms·
I would argue that the G in AGI means it can't require better prompting.
by ccppurcell 2y ago
I would argue that the G in AGI means it can't require better prompting.
- CamperBob2 2y agoWe should probably draw a distinction between a human-equivalent G, which certainly can require better prompting (why else did you go to school?!) and god-equivalent G, which never requires better prompting. Just using the term 'General' doesn't seem to communicate anything useful about the nature of intelligence.
- ccppurcell 2y agoSchool is not better prompting, it's actually the opposite! It's learning how to deal with poorly formed prompts!
- dragonwriter 2y agoThat would like saying that because humans’ output can be better or worse based on better or worse past experience (~prompting, in that it is the source of the equivalent of “in-context learning”), humans lack general intelligence.
- ccppurcell 2y agoNo, it's saying that I have general intelligence in part because I am able to reason about vague prompts
- coffeebeqn 2y agoThis is more like the distinction of a Jr and Sr dev. One needs the tasks the be pre-chewed and defined “good prompts” while the latter can deal with very ambiguous problems
- dragonwriter 2y agoThe entirety of a human's experience is the “prompt”. Current LLMs rely on the analog of instinct (pre-context in-built training) a lot more than humans for their behavior because they have itty bitty tiny context windows, but humans have really big context windows for in-context learning.