4 ms·

This I'm very sure will be the case, but everyone will still move the goalposts and look past the fact that different humans have different strengths and weakne

This I'm very sure will be the case, but everyone will still move the goalposts and look past the fact that different humans have different strengths and weaknesses too. A tone deaf human for instance.

jltsiren 2y ago
There is another term for moving the goalposts: ruling out a hypothesis. Science is, especially in the Popperian sense, all about moving the goalposts. One plausible hypothesis is that fixed neural networks cannot be general intelligences, because their capabilities are permanently limited by what they currently are. A general intelligence needs the ability to learn from experience. Training and inference should not be separate activities, but our current hardware is not suited for that.
- KoolKat23 2y ago
  If that's the case, would you say we're not generally intelligent as future humans tend to be more intelligent? That's just a timescale issue, if its learned experience of gpt4 is being fed into the model on training gpt5, then gptx (i.e. including all of them) can be said to be a general intelligence. Alien life one may say.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    > That's just a timescale issue Every problem is a timescale issue. Evolution has shown that. And no you can't just feed GPT4 into GPT5 and expect it to become more intelligent. It may be more accurate since humans are telling it when conversations are wrong or not. But you will still need advancements in the algorithms themselves to take things forward. All of which takes us back to lots and lots of research. And if there's one thing we know is that research breakthroughs aren't a guarantee.
    - KoolKat23 2y ago
      I think you missed my point slightly, sorry my explaining probably. I mean timescale as in between two points in time. Between the two points it meets the intelligence criteria you mentioned. Feeding human vetted GPT4 data into GPT5 is no different to a human receiving inputs from its interaction with the world and learning. More accurate means smarter, gradually it's intrinsic world model improves as does reasoning etc. I agree those are the things that will advance it but taking a step back it potentially meets that criteria even if less useful day to day (given its an abstract viewpoint over time and not at the human level).

jltsiren 2y ago

There is another term for moving the goalposts: ruling out a hypothesis. Science is, especially in the Popperian sense, all about moving the goalposts. One plausible hypothesis is that fixed neural networks cannot be general intelligences, because their capabilities are permanently limited by what they currently are. A general intelligence needs the ability to learn from experience. Training and inference should not be separate activities, but our current hardware is not suited for that.

KoolKat23 2y ago
If that's the case, would you say we're not generally intelligent as future humans tend to be more intelligent? That's just a timescale issue, if its learned experience of gpt4 is being fed into the model on training gpt5, then gptx (i.e. including all of them) can be said to be a general intelligence. Alien life one may say.
- threeseed 2y ago
  > That's just a timescale issue Every problem is a timescale issue. Evolution has shown that. And no you can't just feed GPT4 into GPT5 and expect it to become more intelligent. It may be more accurate since humans are telling it when conversations are wrong or not. But you will still need advancements in the algorithms themselves to take things forward. All of which takes us back to lots and lots of research. And if there's one thing we know is that research breakthroughs aren't a guarantee.
  - KoolKat23 2y ago
    I think you missed my point slightly, sorry my explaining probably. I mean timescale as in between two points in time. Between the two points it meets the intelligence criteria you mentioned. Feeding human vetted GPT4 data into GPT5 is no different to a human receiving inputs from its interaction with the world and learning. More accurate means smarter, gradually it's intrinsic world model improves as does reasoning etc. I agree those are the things that will advance it but taking a step back it potentially meets that criteria even if less useful day to day (given its an abstract viewpoint over time and not at the human level).