4 ms·

Great. Now we have to think of a new way to move the goalposts.

by razodactyl 2y ago

tines 2y ago
I mean, what else do you call learning?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Pesthuf 2y ago
Well right now, running this model is really expensive, but we should prepare a new cope for when equivalent models no longer are, ahead of time.
- cchance 2y ago
  Ya getting costs down will be the big one, i imagine quantization, distillation and lots and lots of improvements on the compute side both hardware and software wise.
a_wild_dandan 2y ago
Let's just define AI as "whatever computers still can't do." That'll show those dumb statistical parrots!
dboreham 2y ago
[flagged]
foobarqux 2y ago
This is just as silly as claiming that people "moved the goalposts" when a computer beat Kasparov at chess to claim that it wasn't AGI: it wasn't a good test and some people only realize this after the computer beat Kasparov but couldn't do much else. In this case the ARC maintainers specifically have stated that this is a necessary but not sufficient test of AGI (I personally think it is neither).
- famouswaffles 2y ago
  It's not silly. The computer that could beat Kasparov couldn't do anything else so of course it wasn't Artificial General Intelligence. o3 can do much much more. There is nothing narrow about SOTA LLMs. They are already General. It doesn't matter what ARC Maintainers have said. There is no common definition of General that LLMs fail to meet. It's not a binary thing. By the time a single machine covers every little test humanity can devise, what comes out of that is not 'AGI' as the words themselves mean but a General Super Intelligence.
  - foobarqux 2y ago
    It is silly, the logic is the same: "Only a (world-altering) 'AGI' could do [test]" -> test is passed -> no (world-altering) 'AGI' -> conclude that [test] is not a sufficient test for (world-altering) 'AGI' -> chase new benchmark. If you want to play games about how to define AGI go ahead. People have been claiming for years that we've already reached AGI and with every improvement they have to bizarrely claim anew that now we've really achieved AGI. But after a few months people realize it still doesn't do what you would expect of an AGI and so you chase some new benchmark ("just one more eval"). The fact is that there really hasn't been the type of world-altering impact that people generally associate with AGI and no reason to expect one.
    - famouswaffles 2y ago
      >It is silly, the logic is the same: "Only a (world-altering) 'AGI' could do [test]" -> test is passed -> no (world-altering) 'AGI' -> conclude that [test] is not a sufficient test for (world-altering) 'AGI' -> chase new benchmark. Basically nobody today thinks beating a single benchmark and nothing else will make you a General Intelligence. As you've already pointed out out, even the maintainers of ARC-AGI do not think this. >If you want to play games about how to define AGI go ahead. I'm not playing any games. ENIAC cannot do 99% of the things people use computers to do today and yet barely anybody will tell you it wasn't the first general purpose computer. On the contrary, it is people who seem to think "General" is a moniker for everything under the sun (and then some) that are playing games with definitions. >People have been claiming for years that we've already reached AGI and with every improvement they have to bizarrely claim anew that now we've really achieved AGI. Who are these people ? Do you have any examples at all. Genuine question >But after a few months people realize it still doesn't do what you would expect of an AGI and so you chase some new benchmark ("just one more eval"). What do you expect from 'AGI'? Everybody seems to have different expectations, much of it rooted in science fiction and not even reality, so this is a moot point. What exactly is World Altering to you ? Genuinely, do you even have anything other than a "I'll know it when i see it ?" If you introduce technology most people adopt, is that world altering or are you waiting for Skynet ?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Great. Now we have to think of a new way to move the goalposts.

tines 2y ago

I mean, what else do you call learning?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Pesthuf 2y ago

Well right now, running this model is really expensive, but we should prepare a new cope for when equivalent models no longer are, ahead of time.

cchance 2y ago
Ya getting costs down will be the big one, i imagine quantization, distillation and lots and lots of improvements on the compute side both hardware and software wise.

a_wild_dandan 2y ago

Let's just define AI as "whatever computers still can't do." That'll show those dumb statistical parrots!

dboreham 2y ago

[flagged]

foobarqux 2y ago

This is just as silly as claiming that people "moved the goalposts" when a computer beat Kasparov at chess to claim that it wasn't AGI: it wasn't a good test and some people only realize this after the computer beat Kasparov but couldn't do much else. In this case the ARC maintainers specifically have stated that this is a necessary but not sufficient test of AGI (I personally think it is neither).

famouswaffles 2y ago
It's not silly. The computer that could beat Kasparov couldn't do anything else so of course it wasn't Artificial General Intelligence. o3 can do much much more. There is nothing narrow about SOTA LLMs. They are already General. It doesn't matter what ARC Maintainers have said. There is no common definition of General that LLMs fail to meet. It's not a binary thing. By the time a single machine covers every little test humanity can devise, what comes out of that is not 'AGI' as the words themselves mean but a General Super Intelligence.
- foobarqux 2y ago
  It is silly, the logic is the same: "Only a (world-altering) 'AGI' could do [test]" -> test is passed -> no (world-altering) 'AGI' -> conclude that [test] is not a sufficient test for (world-altering) 'AGI' -> chase new benchmark. If you want to play games about how to define AGI go ahead. People have been claiming for years that we've already reached AGI and with every improvement they have to bizarrely claim anew that now we've really achieved AGI. But after a few months people realize it still doesn't do what you would expect of an AGI and so you chase some new benchmark ("just one more eval"). The fact is that there really hasn't been the type of world-altering impact that people generally associate with AGI and no reason to expect one.
  - famouswaffles 2y ago
    >It is silly, the logic is the same: "Only a (world-altering) 'AGI' could do [test]" -> test is passed -> no (world-altering) 'AGI' -> conclude that [test] is not a sufficient test for (world-altering) 'AGI' -> chase new benchmark. Basically nobody today thinks beating a single benchmark and nothing else will make you a General Intelligence. As you've already pointed out out, even the maintainers of ARC-AGI do not think this. >If you want to play games about how to define AGI go ahead. I'm not playing any games. ENIAC cannot do 99% of the things people use computers to do today and yet barely anybody will tell you it wasn't the first general purpose computer. On the contrary, it is people who seem to think "General" is a moniker for everything under the sun (and then some) that are playing games with definitions. >People have been claiming for years that we've already reached AGI and with every improvement they have to bizarrely claim anew that now we've really achieved AGI. Who are these people ? Do you have any examples at all. Genuine question >But after a few months people realize it still doesn't do what you would expect of an AGI and so you chase some new benchmark ("just one more eval"). What do you expect from 'AGI'? Everybody seems to have different expectations, much of it rooted in science fiction and not even reality, so this is a moot point. What exactly is World Altering to you ? Genuinely, do you even have anything other than a "I'll know it when i see it ?" If you introduce technology most people adopt, is that world altering or are you waiting for Skynet ?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]