12 ms·

Nothing OpenAI is doing, or ever has done, has been close to AGI.

pinkmuffinere 1y ago
I agree with you, but that’s kindof beside the point. Open AI’s thesis is that they will work towards AGI, and eventually succeed. In the context of that premise, Open AI still doesn’t believe AGI would be winner-takes-all. I think that’s an interesting discussion whether you believe the premise or not.
- Night_Thastus 1y ago
  If they're saying it's not 'winner takes all' it's cover to shield them from the fact that they aren't (or may not always be) in the top spot. They would not be saying that if they were undeniably the best - they'd say the opposite.
AndrewKemendo 1y ago
I agree with you I wonder, do you have a hypothesis as to what would be a measurement that would differentiate AGI vs Not-AGI?
- latentsea 1y ago
  When it can start wars over resources.
  - AndrewKemendo 1y ago
    Seems as good a difference as any
  - immibis 1y ago
    So now? Trump generated his tariff list with ChatGPT
    - latentsea 1y ago
      On its own.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- somenameforme 1y ago
  Differentiating between AGI and non-AGI, if we ever get remotely close, would be challenging, but for now it's trivial. The defining feature of AGI is recursive self improvement across any field. Without self improvement, you're just regurgitating. Humanity started with no advanced knowledge or even a language. In what should practically be a heartbeat at the speed of distributed computing with perfect memory and computation power, we were landing a man on the Moon. So one fundamental difference is that AGI would not need some absurdly massive data dump to become intelligent. In fact you would prefer to feed it as minimal a series of the most primitive first principles as possible because it's certain that much of what we think is true is going to end up being not quite so -- the same as for humanity at any other given moment in time. We could derive more basic principles, but this one is fundamental and already completely incompatible with our current direction. Right now we're trying to essentially train on the entire corpus of human writing. That is a defacto acknowledgement that the absolute endgame for current tech is simple mimicry, mistakes and all. It'd create a facsimile of impressive intelligence because no human would have a remotely comparable knowledge base, but it'd basically just be a glorified natural language search engine - frozen in time.
  - Closi 1y ago
    I'm not sure humans meet the definition here. If you took the average human from birth and gave them only 'the most primitive first principles', the chance that they would have novel insights into medicine is doubtful. I also disagree with your following statement: > Right now we're trying to essentially train on the entire corpus of human writing. That is a defacto acknowledgement that the absolute endgame for current tech is simple mimicry At worst it's complex mimicry! But I would also say that mimicry is part of intelligence in general and part of how humans discover. It's also easy to see that AI can learn things - you can teach an AI a novel language by feeding in a fairly small amount of words and grammar of example text into context. I also disagree with this statement: > One fundamental difference is that AGI would not need some absurdly massive data dump to become intelligent I don't think how something became intelligent should affect whether it is intelligent or not. These are two different questions.
    - 1y ago
- 6510 1y ago
  It's not much help but when I read "AGI" I picture a fish tank with brains floating in it.
  - AndrewKemendo 1y ago
    Interesting but I’m not sure very instructive
voidspark 1y ago
Their multimodal models are a rudimentary form of AGI. EDIT: There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI". https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462 https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462
- always_imposter 1y ago
  AGI would mean something which doesn't need direction or guidance to do anything. Like us humans, we don't wait for somebody to give us a task and go do it as if that is our sole existence. We live with our thoughts, blank out, watch TV, read books etc. What we currently have and possibly in the next century as well will be nothing close to an actual AGI. I don't know if it is optimism or delusions of grandeur that drives people to make claims like AGI will be here in the next decade. No, we are not getting that. And what do you think would happen to us humans if such AGI is achieved? People's ability to put food on the table is dependent on their labor exchanged for money. I can guarantee for a fact, that work will still be there but will it be equitable? Available to everyone? Absolutely not. Even UBI isn't going to cut it because even with UBI people still want to work as experiments have shown. But with that, there won't be a majority of work especially paper pushing mid level bs like managers on top of managers etc. If we actually get AGI, you know what would be the smartest thing for such an advanced thing to do? It would probably kill itself because it would come to the conclusion that living is a sin and a futile effort. If you are that smart, nothing motivates you anymore. You will be just a depressed mass for all your life. That's just how I feel.
  - voidspark 1y ago
    > AGI would mean something which doesn't need direction or guidance to do anything There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI". ChatGPT can solve problems that it was not explicitly trained to solve, across a vast number of problem domains. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.02462 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.02462 The paper is summarized here https://venturebeat.com/ai/here-is-how-far-we-are-to-achieving-agi-according-to-deepmind/ https://venturebeat.com/ai/here-is-how-far-we-are-to-achievi...
abtinf 1y ago
Agreed and, if anything, you are too generous. They aren’t just not “close”, they aren’t even working in the same category as anything that might be construed as independently intelligent.
dr_dshiv 1y ago
https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-already-here https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-... Here is a mainstream opinion about why AGI is already here. Written by one of the authors the most widely read AI textbook: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Modern_Approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Mod...
- semi-extrinsic 1y ago
  ... that was written in mid-2023. So that opinion piece is trying to redefine 2 year old LLMs like GPT-4 (pre-4o) as AGI. Which can only be described as an absolutely herculean movement of goalposts.
- brendoelfrendo 1y ago
  I would argue that this is a fringe opinion that has been adopted by a mainstream scholar, not a mainstream opinion. That or, based on my reading of the article, this person is using a definition of AGI that is very different than the one that most people use when they say AGI.
- henryfjordan 1y ago
  Why does the Author choose to ignore the "General" in AGI? Can ChatGPT drive a car? No, we have specialized models for driving vs generating text vs image vs video etc etc. Maybe ChatGPT could pass a high school chemistry test but it certainly couldn't complete the lab exercises. What we've built is a really cool "Algorithm for indexing generalized data", so you can train that Driving model very similarly to how you train the Text model without needing to understand the underlying data that well. The author asserts that because ChatGPT can generate text about so many topics that it's general, but it's really only doing 1 thing and that's not very general.
  - brookst 1y ago
    There are people who can’t drive cars. Are they not general intelligence? I think we need to separate the thinking part of intelligence from tool usage. Not everyone can use every tool at a high level of expertise.
kvetching 1y ago
Please, keep telling people that. For my sake. Keep the world asleep as I take advantage of this technology which is literally General Artificial Intelligence that I can apply towards increasing my power.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  Every tool is a technology than can increase ones power.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- 6510 1y ago
  That is just what it wants you to think.

I agree with you, but that’s kindof beside the point. Open AI’s thesis is that they will work towards AGI, and eventually succeed. In the context of that premise, Open AI still doesn’t believe AGI would be winner-takes-all. I think that’s an interesting discussion whether you believe the premise or not.

Night_Thastus 1y ago
If they're saying it's not 'winner takes all' it's cover to shield them from the fact that they aren't (or may not always be) in the top spot. They would not be saying that if they were undeniably the best - they'd say the opposite.

AndrewKemendo 1y ago

I agree with you I wonder, do you have a hypothesis as to what would be a measurement that would differentiate AGI vs Not-AGI?

latentsea 1y ago
When it can start wars over resources.
- AndrewKemendo 1y ago
  Seems as good a difference as any
- immibis 1y ago
  So now? Trump generated his tariff list with ChatGPT
  - latentsea 1y ago
    On its own.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 1y ago
Differentiating between AGI and non-AGI, if we ever get remotely close, would be challenging, but for now it's trivial. The defining feature of AGI is recursive self improvement across any field. Without self improvement, you're just regurgitating. Humanity started with no advanced knowledge or even a language. In what should practically be a heartbeat at the speed of distributed computing with perfect memory and computation power, we were landing a man on the Moon. So one fundamental difference is that AGI would not need some absurdly massive data dump to become intelligent. In fact you would prefer to feed it as minimal a series of the most primitive first principles as possible because it's certain that much of what we think is true is going to end up being not quite so -- the same as for humanity at any other given moment in time. We could derive more basic principles, but this one is fundamental and already completely incompatible with our current direction. Right now we're trying to essentially train on the entire corpus of human writing. That is a defacto acknowledgement that the absolute endgame for current tech is simple mimicry, mistakes and all. It'd create a facsimile of impressive intelligence because no human would have a remotely comparable knowledge base, but it'd basically just be a glorified natural language search engine - frozen in time.
- Closi 1y ago
  I'm not sure humans meet the definition here. If you took the average human from birth and gave them only 'the most primitive first principles', the chance that they would have novel insights into medicine is doubtful. I also disagree with your following statement: > Right now we're trying to essentially train on the entire corpus of human writing. That is a defacto acknowledgement that the absolute endgame for current tech is simple mimicry At worst it's complex mimicry! But I would also say that mimicry is part of intelligence in general and part of how humans discover. It's also easy to see that AI can learn things - you can teach an AI a novel language by feeding in a fairly small amount of words and grammar of example text into context. I also disagree with this statement: > One fundamental difference is that AGI would not need some absurdly massive data dump to become intelligent I don't think how something became intelligent should affect whether it is intelligent or not. These are two different questions.
  - 1y ago
6510 1y ago
It's not much help but when I read "AGI" I picture a fish tank with brains floating in it.
- AndrewKemendo 1y ago
  Interesting but I’m not sure very instructive

voidspark 1y ago

Their multimodal models are a rudimentary form of AGI. EDIT: There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI". https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462 https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

always_imposter 1y ago
AGI would mean something which doesn't need direction or guidance to do anything. Like us humans, we don't wait for somebody to give us a task and go do it as if that is our sole existence. We live with our thoughts, blank out, watch TV, read books etc. What we currently have and possibly in the next century as well will be nothing close to an actual AGI. I don't know if it is optimism or delusions of grandeur that drives people to make claims like AGI will be here in the next decade. No, we are not getting that. And what do you think would happen to us humans if such AGI is achieved? People's ability to put food on the table is dependent on their labor exchanged for money. I can guarantee for a fact, that work will still be there but will it be equitable? Available to everyone? Absolutely not. Even UBI isn't going to cut it because even with UBI people still want to work as experiments have shown. But with that, there won't be a majority of work especially paper pushing mid level bs like managers on top of managers etc. If we actually get AGI, you know what would be the smartest thing for such an advanced thing to do? It would probably kill itself because it would come to the conclusion that living is a sin and a futile effort. If you are that smart, nothing motivates you anymore. You will be just a depressed mass for all your life. That's just how I feel.
- voidspark 1y ago
  > AGI would mean something which doesn't need direction or guidance to do anything There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI". ChatGPT can solve problems that it was not explicitly trained to solve, across a vast number of problem domains. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.02462 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.02462 The paper is summarized here https://venturebeat.com/ai/here-is-how-far-we-are-to-achieving-agi-according-to-deepmind/ https://venturebeat.com/ai/here-is-how-far-we-are-to-achievi...

abtinf 1y ago

Agreed and, if anything, you are too generous. They aren’t just not “close”, they aren’t even working in the same category as anything that might be construed as independently intelligent.

dr_dshiv 1y ago

https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-already-here https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-... Here is a mainstream opinion about why AGI is already here. Written by one of the authors the most widely read AI textbook: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Modern_Approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Mod...

semi-extrinsic 1y ago
... that was written in mid-2023. So that opinion piece is trying to redefine 2 year old LLMs like GPT-4 (pre-4o) as AGI. Which can only be described as an absolutely herculean movement of goalposts.
brendoelfrendo 1y ago
I would argue that this is a fringe opinion that has been adopted by a mainstream scholar, not a mainstream opinion. That or, based on my reading of the article, this person is using a definition of AGI that is very different than the one that most people use when they say AGI.
henryfjordan 1y ago
Why does the Author choose to ignore the "General" in AGI? Can ChatGPT drive a car? No, we have specialized models for driving vs generating text vs image vs video etc etc. Maybe ChatGPT could pass a high school chemistry test but it certainly couldn't complete the lab exercises. What we've built is a really cool "Algorithm for indexing generalized data", so you can train that Driving model very similarly to how you train the Text model without needing to understand the underlying data that well. The author asserts that because ChatGPT can generate text about so many topics that it's general, but it's really only doing 1 thing and that's not very general.
- brookst 1y ago
  There are people who can’t drive cars. Are they not general intelligence? I think we need to separate the thinking part of intelligence from tool usage. Not everyone can use every tool at a high level of expertise.

kvetching 1y ago

Please, keep telling people that. For my sake. Keep the world asleep as I take advantage of this technology which is literally General Artificial Intelligence that I can apply towards increasing my power.

throwaway48476 1y ago
Every tool is a technology than can increase ones power.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
6510 1y ago
That is just what it wants you to think.