6 ms·
Stop treating `AGI' as the north-star goal of AI research
- Der_Einzige 2y agoNo.
- az09mugen 2y agoYes.
- ashoeafoot 2y agoIntroducing the two bit weight! Now you can pack all your uniform greyzones into the variable name. Save memory, process yoir dara faster on smaller chips! We can retrain them we have the technology !
- YetAnotherNick 2y agoI highly doubt any company are just focusing on AGI, including OpenAI. Else they wouldn't keep on releasing 5 versions of 4o with different "personality".
- pixl97 2y agoHumans are a general intelligence, yet the vast majority of us have or own personality. Unless you're thinking of a superintelligence that can simulate any personality it wants.
- YetAnotherNick 2y agoTweaking the "personality" of LLMs has nothing to do with how smart they are. And using lists or emojis more doesn't make them more intelligent. They just increase the usage as people will like talking to them more.
- eli_gottlieb 2y agoGoogle currently has job ads out for post-AGI AI research.
- YetAnotherNick 2y agoSee my post again. I said "just focusing".
- bmacho 2y agoIs it just me, or this title is gross and annoying up to the point that it's straight up trolling?
- tim333 2y agoIt is kinda. And reading the abstract it's maybe worse.
- adityamwagh 2y agoYeah. I also don’t understand why it’s an Arxiv article, rather than a blogpost.
- ivape 2y agoThe talent pool has thinned due to oversaturation, isn't that obvious?
- umbra07 2y agoBecause papers are increasingly written to catch the attention of news publications/blogs/social media instead of professors/academics/researchers.
- cwillu 2y agoPosition papers are not a recent phenomenon.
- belter 2y agoAGI persists not because it’s a coherent scientific objective, but because it functions as a lucrative mythology perfectly aligned with VC expectations...Next step...analyze AGI not just as bad science, but as good branding.
- tim333 2y agoIt seems something like a scientific objective. To understand human thinking try making a machine that can do it.
- chunkmonke99 2y agoAre we sure that is what is happening? Can you really do any meaningful "science" when the subject understudy is a black box that is under a shroud of secrecy? What has been learned from LLMs regarding human cognition and is there broad convergence on that view?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tim333 2y agoIt's not the main driver of what's happening but it's an aspect of it that goes back a way. For example Turing writing in 1946: >I am more interested in the possibility of producing models of the action of the brain than in the applications to practical computing...although the brain may in fact operate by changing its neuron circuits by the growth of axons and dendrites, we could nevertheless make a model... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unorganized_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unorganized_machine
- chunkmonke99 2y agoOh man I was not aware of this aspect of Turing's work thank you for sharing!! Honestly, trying to reverse engineering something to understand how it works is interesting and potentially worthwhile! To me it's obvious that "broadly mechanistic" or causal explanations of specific cognitive functions can be created. I am not doubting that a "machine" can mimic human cognitive abilities -insofar as we can state them or "tokenize" them precisely. I am pretty sure that is the whole basis of Cognitive Science. But just because we can mimic those capacities: does that imply that those are the same mechanisms that exist in nature? Herbert Simon made a distinction between "Natural" and "artificial" system: an LLM's function is to model language (and they do a damn good job of that!) does the brain have one function and what is it? If you build a submarine does that mean it tells you something about how fish swim? Even if it swims faster than any of the fish?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ivape 2y agoWe can't. I'll explain why very simply. The vision of AI and the vision of Virtual Reality all existed well before the technology. We envisioned humanoid robots well before we ever had a chance of making them. We also envisioned an all-knowing AI well before we had our current technology. We will continue to envision the end-state because it is the most natural conclusion. No human can not not imagine the inevitable. That every human, technical or not, has the capacity to fully imagine this future, which means the entirety of the human race will be directed to this forgone conclusion. Like God and Death (and taxes). shrugs Smith: It is inevitable Mr. Anderson
- Nullabillity 2y agoWe don't have to build the torment nexus.
- yupitsme123 2y agoSome marketer decided to call this stuff AI precisely because they wanted to make the connection to those grand visions that you're talking about. If instead we called them what they are, Large Language Models, would you still say that they were hurtling inevitably towards Generalized Intelligence?
- ivape 2y agoYeah.
- yupitsme123 2y agoWhy? How do LLMs amd diffusion models relate to the "vision of AI and the vision of Virtual Reality"
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]