3 ms·

Let me modify that a little, because humans can't do things outside their training set either. A crucial element of AGI would be the ability to self-train on s

Let me modify that a little, because humans can't do things outside their training set either. A crucial element of AGI would be the ability to self-train on self-generated data, online. So it's not really AGI if there is a hard distinction between training and inference (though it may still be very capable), and it's not really AGI if it can't work its way through novel problems on its own. The ability to immediately solve a problem it's never seen before is too high a bar, I think. And yes, my definition still excludes a lot of humans in a lot of fields. That's a bullet I'm willing to bite.

lxgr 2y ago
Are you arguing that writing, doing math, going to the moon etc. were all in the "original training set" of humans in some way?
- layer8 2y ago
  Not in the original training set (GP is saying), but the necessary skills became part of the training set over time. In other words, human are fine with the training set being a changing moving target, whereas ML models are to a significant extent “stuck” with their original training set. (That’s not to say that humans don’t tend to lose some of their flexibility over their individual lifetimes as well.)
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > (That’s not to say that humans don’t tend to lose some of their flexibility over their individual lifetimes as well.) The lifetime is the context window, the model/training is the DNA. A human in the moment isn't general intelligent, but a human over his lifetime is, the first is so much easier to try to replicate though but that is a bad target since humans aren't born like that.
HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
> Let me modify that a little, because humans can't do things outside their training set either. That's not true. Humans can learn. An LLM is just a tool. If it can't do what you want then too bad.
- Filligree 2y ago
  That’s… what I said, yes.

lxgr 2y ago

Are you arguing that writing, doing math, going to the moon etc. were all in the "original training set" of humans in some way?

layer8 2y ago
Not in the original training set (GP is saying), but the necessary skills became part of the training set over time. In other words, human are fine with the training set being a changing moving target, whereas ML models are to a significant extent “stuck” with their original training set. (That’s not to say that humans don’t tend to lose some of their flexibility over their individual lifetimes as well.)
- Jensson 2y ago
  > (That’s not to say that humans don’t tend to lose some of their flexibility over their individual lifetimes as well.) The lifetime is the context window, the model/training is the DNA. A human in the moment isn't general intelligent, but a human over his lifetime is, the first is so much easier to try to replicate though but that is a bad target since humans aren't born like that.

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago

> Let me modify that a little, because humans can't do things outside their training set either. That's not true. Humans can learn. An LLM is just a tool. If it can't do what you want then too bad.

Filligree 2y ago
That’s… what I said, yes.