6 ms·

The "general" part of AGI implies it should be capable across all types of different tasks. I would definitely call it real Artificial Intelligence, but it's no

by blharr 2y ago

The "general" part of AGI implies it should be capable across all types of different tasks. I would definitely call it real Artificial Intelligence, but it's not general by any means.

FeepingCreature 2y ago
It's capable of attempting all types of different tasks. That is a novel capability on its own. We're used to GPT's amusing failures at this point, so we forget that there is absolutely no input you could hand to a chess program that would get it to try and play checkers. Not so with GPT. It will try, and fail, but that it tries at all was unimaginable five years ago.
- dahart 2y ago
  Its amusing to me how the very language used to describe GPT anthropomorphizes it. GPT wont “attempt” or “try” anything on its own without a human telling it what to try, it has no agenda, no will, no agency, no self-reflection, no initiative, no fear, and no desire. It’s all A and no I.
  - FeepingCreature 2y ago
    Do you agree that "there is absolutely no input you could hand to a chess program that would get it to try and play checkers", but there is an input you can hand to GPT-3+ that will get it to try and play pretty much any game imaginable, so long as you agree that its attempt will be very poor? I don't want to get into the weeds on what intelligence is or what "attempt" means or "try" means (you can probably guess I disagree with your position), but do you have a disagreement on pure input/output behavior? Do you disagree that if I put adequate words in, words will come out that will resemble an attempt to do the task, for nearly any task that exists?
    - dahart 2y ago
      You’re trying to avoid addressing my point. What can GPT do that’s interesting without a human in the loop doing the prompting? Lol “very poor”. You’re attempting to argue that if there’s any output at all in response to an input prompt, then GPT is “trying” and showing signs of intelligence, no matter what the output is. By this logic, you contradicted yourself: the chess engine can play checkers, poorly. By this logic, asking the sky to play a game means the sky is trying because it changes, or asking a random number generator to play a game means it resembles an attempt to play because there is “very poor” output. There are lots of games GPT can’t play, like hide-and-seek, tag, and tennis. Playing a game means playing by the rules of the game, giving coherent output, and trying to win. GPT can’t play games it hasn’t seen before, and no I don’t agree that “very poor” output counts. It doesn’t (currently) learn the rules from your prompts; you can’t teach it to play a new game by talking to it, and the “very poor” output from a game it wasn’t trained on will never improve. And, to my actual point, GPT will not play any games at all unless you ask it to.
      - CamperBob2 2y ago
        What can GPT do that’s interesting without a human in the loop doing the prompting? Understand what the human in the loop doing the prompting is asking for, for one thing. The magical aspects of LLMs are on the input side, not the output.
        dahart 2y ago
        This probably isn’t what you meant, but if the magic is on the input side, then everything interesting about interacting with GPT is being provided by the human and not GPT. We don’t have any strong evidence that GPT “understands” its input in general. We absolutely have examples of GPT failing to understand some inputs (and not knowing it, and insisting on bogus output). And we know for a fact that it was designed and built to produce statistically plausible output. GPT is a mechanical device designed by humans to pass the Turing test. We’ve designed and built something that is exceptionally good at making humans believe it is smarter than it is.
        2y ago
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    That's not an interesting argument, all you're doing is staking out words that are reserved for beings with souls or something. It's like saying submarines can't swim. It's an argument about linguistics, not capabilities.
    - dahart 2y ago
      Disagree. The ability to “try” is a capability, and GPT doesn’t have it. Everything in the world that we’ve called “intelligent” up to this point has had autonomy and self motivation, and GPT doesn’t have those things. GPT doesn’t grow and doesn’t learn from its mistakes. GPT won’t act without a prompt, this is a basic fact of its design, and I’m not sure why people are suddenly confused about this.
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        "Try" doesn't imply autonomy or individual initiative because people can "try" to do things other people are ordering them to do.
        dahart 2y ago
        Try rephrasing that without referring to people, otherwise you’re supporting my original point. ;) “Try” does imply autonomy, it implies there was a goal on the part of the individual doing the trying, a choice about whether and how to try, and the possibility for failure to achieve the goal. You can argue that the words “attempt” and “try” can technically be used on machines, but it still anthropomorphizes them. If you say “my poor car was trying to get up the hill”, you’re being cheeky and giving your car a little personality. The car either will or will not make it up the hill, but it has no desire to “try” regardless of how you describe it, and most importantly it will not “try” to do anything without the human driving it. You’re choosing to ignore my actual point and make this about semantics, which I agree is boring. Show me how GPT has any autonomy or agency of its own, and you can make this a more interesting conversation for both of us.

by blharr 2y ago

The "general" part of AGI implies it should be capable across all types of different tasks. I would definitely call it real Artificial Intelligence, but it's not general by any means.

FeepingCreature 2y ago

It's capable of attempting all types of different tasks. That is a novel capability on its own. We're used to GPT's amusing failures at this point, so we forget that there is absolutely no input you could hand to a chess program that would get it to try and play checkers. Not so with GPT. It will try, and fail, but that it tries at all was unimaginable five years ago.

dahart 2y ago
Its amusing to me how the very language used to describe GPT anthropomorphizes it. GPT wont “attempt” or “try” anything on its own without a human telling it what to try, it has no agenda, no will, no agency, no self-reflection, no initiative, no fear, and no desire. It’s all A and no I.
- FeepingCreature 2y ago
  Do you agree that "there is absolutely no input you could hand to a chess program that would get it to try and play checkers", but there is an input you can hand to GPT-3+ that will get it to try and play pretty much any game imaginable, so long as you agree that its attempt will be very poor? I don't want to get into the weeds on what intelligence is or what "attempt" means or "try" means (you can probably guess I disagree with your position), but do you have a disagreement on pure input/output behavior? Do you disagree that if I put adequate words in, words will come out that will resemble an attempt to do the task, for nearly any task that exists?
  - dahart 2y ago
    You’re trying to avoid addressing my point. What can GPT do that’s interesting without a human in the loop doing the prompting? Lol “very poor”. You’re attempting to argue that if there’s any output at all in response to an input prompt, then GPT is “trying” and showing signs of intelligence, no matter what the output is. By this logic, you contradicted yourself: the chess engine can play checkers, poorly. By this logic, asking the sky to play a game means the sky is trying because it changes, or asking a random number generator to play a game means it resembles an attempt to play because there is “very poor” output. There are lots of games GPT can’t play, like hide-and-seek, tag, and tennis. Playing a game means playing by the rules of the game, giving coherent output, and trying to win. GPT can’t play games it hasn’t seen before, and no I don’t agree that “very poor” output counts. It doesn’t (currently) learn the rules from your prompts; you can’t teach it to play a new game by talking to it, and the “very poor” output from a game it wasn’t trained on will never improve. And, to my actual point, GPT will not play any games at all unless you ask it to.
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      What can GPT do that’s interesting without a human in the loop doing the prompting? Understand what the human in the loop doing the prompting is asking for, for one thing. The magical aspects of LLMs are on the input side, not the output.
      - dahart 2y ago
        This probably isn’t what you meant, but if the magic is on the input side, then everything interesting about interacting with GPT is being provided by the human and not GPT. We don’t have any strong evidence that GPT “understands” its input in general. We absolutely have examples of GPT failing to understand some inputs (and not knowing it, and insisting on bogus output). And we know for a fact that it was designed and built to produce statistically plausible output. GPT is a mechanical device designed by humans to pass the Turing test. We’ve designed and built something that is exceptionally good at making humans believe it is smarter than it is.
        2y ago
- lupusreal 2y ago
  That's not an interesting argument, all you're doing is staking out words that are reserved for beings with souls or something. It's like saying submarines can't swim. It's an argument about linguistics, not capabilities.
  - dahart 2y ago
    Disagree. The ability to “try” is a capability, and GPT doesn’t have it. Everything in the world that we’ve called “intelligent” up to this point has had autonomy and self motivation, and GPT doesn’t have those things. GPT doesn’t grow and doesn’t learn from its mistakes. GPT won’t act without a prompt, this is a basic fact of its design, and I’m not sure why people are suddenly confused about this.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      "Try" doesn't imply autonomy or individual initiative because people can "try" to do things other people are ordering them to do.
      - dahart 2y ago
        Try rephrasing that without referring to people, otherwise you’re supporting my original point. ;) “Try” does imply autonomy, it implies there was a goal on the part of the individual doing the trying, a choice about whether and how to try, and the possibility for failure to achieve the goal. You can argue that the words “attempt” and “try” can technically be used on machines, but it still anthropomorphizes them. If you say “my poor car was trying to get up the hill”, you’re being cheeky and giving your car a little personality. The car either will or will not make it up the hill, but it has no desire to “try” regardless of how you describe it, and most importantly it will not “try” to do anything without the human driving it. You’re choosing to ignore my actual point and make this about semantics, which I agree is boring. Show me how GPT has any autonomy or agency of its own, and you can make this a more interesting conversation for both of us.