4 ms·
Isn't any formal "proof" or "reasoning" that shows that something cannot be AGI inherently flawed, because we have a hard time formally describing what AGI is a
by vouwfietsman 2y ago
Isn't any formal "proof" or "reasoning" that shows that something cannot be AGI inherently flawed, because we have a hard time formally describing what AGI is anyway.
Like your argument: embodiment is missing in LLMs, but is it needed for AGI? Nobody knows.
I feel we first have to do a better job defining the basics of intelligence, we can then define what it means to be an AGI, and only then can we prove that something is, or is not, AGI.
It seems that we skipped step 1 because its too hard, and jumped straight to step 3.
- GeneralMayhem 2y agoYep, this is a big part of it. Intelligence and consciousness are barely understood beyond "I'll know it when I see it", which doesn't work for things you can't see - and in the case of consciousness, most definitions are explicitly based on concepts that are not only invisible but ineffable. And then we have no solid idea whether these things we can't really define, detect, or explain are intrinsically linked to each other or have a causal relationship in either direction. Almost any definition you pick is going to lead to some unsatisfying conclusions vis a vis non-human animals or "obviously not intelligent" forms of machine learning. It's a real mess.
- Vecr 2y agoAIXItl is a formally described AI. Not an AI you'd want, and not an AI you could really build, but it's there.