4 ms·

It is already here, kinda. I mean look at how it passes the bar exam, solves math olympiad level questions, generates video, art, music. What else are you looki

by dbacar 1y ago

It is already here, kinda. I mean look at how it passes the bar exam, solves math olympiad level questions, generates video, art, music. What else are you looking for? It already has penetrated into job market causing significant disruption in programming. We are not seeing flying cars but we are witnessing things even not talked about around campfire. Seriously even 4 years ago, would you think all these would happen?

bdangubic 1y ago
AGI is here?????! Damn, me, and every other human, must have missed that news… /s
- dbacar 1y ago
  Such things happen.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dns_snek 1y ago
> What else are you looking for? To begin with, systems that don't tell people to use elmer's glue to keep the cheese from sliding off the pizza, displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of.. everything. At minimum it needs to be able to reliably solve hard, unique, but well-defined problems like a group of the most cohesive intelligent people could. It's certainly not AGI until it can do a better job than the most experienced, talented, and intelligent knowledge workers out there. Every major advancement (which LLMs certainly are) has caused some disruption in the fields it affected, but that isn't useful criteria that can differentiate between "crude but useful tool" from "AGI".
- dbacar 1y ago
  Majority of people on earth don't solve hard, unique, but well-defined problems, do we? I dont expect AGI to to solve one of Hilbert's list of problems (yet). Your definition of AGI is a bit too imposing. Saying that I believe you would get answers from an LLM better than most of the answers you would get from an average human. IMHO the trend is obvious and we will see if it stalls or keeps the pace.
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    I don't mean "hard" in the sense that it can easily solve novel problems that no living human knows how to solve, although any "general" intelligence should certainly be capable of learning and making progress on these just like human would, but without limitations of human memory, attention span, relatively short lifetime, and other human needs. I mean "hard" in the sense that it can reliably replace the best software developers, civil engineers, lawyers, diagnosticians. Not just in economic sense, but by reliably matching the quality of their work 100% of the time. It should be capable of methodically and reliably arriving at correct answers without expert intervention. It shouldn't be the case that some people claim that they don't know how to code and the LLM generated an entire project for them, while I can confidently claim that LLMs fall flat on their face almost every time I try to use them for more delicate business logic.

by dbacar 1y ago

bdangubic 1y ago

AGI is here?????! Damn, me, and every other human, must have missed that news… /s

dbacar 1y ago
Such things happen.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

dns_snek 1y ago

> What else are you looking for? To begin with, systems that don't tell people to use elmer's glue to keep the cheese from sliding off the pizza, displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of.. everything. At minimum it needs to be able to reliably solve hard, unique, but well-defined problems like a group of the most cohesive intelligent people could. It's certainly not AGI until it can do a better job than the most experienced, talented, and intelligent knowledge workers out there. Every major advancement (which LLMs certainly are) has caused some disruption in the fields it affected, but that isn't useful criteria that can differentiate between "crude but useful tool" from "AGI".

dbacar 1y ago
Majority of people on earth don't solve hard, unique, but well-defined problems, do we? I dont expect AGI to to solve one of Hilbert's list of problems (yet). Your definition of AGI is a bit too imposing. Saying that I believe you would get answers from an LLM better than most of the answers you would get from an average human. IMHO the trend is obvious and we will see if it stalls or keeps the pace.
- dns_snek 1y ago
  I don't mean "hard" in the sense that it can easily solve novel problems that no living human knows how to solve, although any "general" intelligence should certainly be capable of learning and making progress on these just like human would, but without limitations of human memory, attention span, relatively short lifetime, and other human needs. I mean "hard" in the sense that it can reliably replace the best software developers, civil engineers, lawyers, diagnosticians. Not just in economic sense, but by reliably matching the quality of their work 100% of the time. It should be capable of methodically and reliably arriving at correct answers without expert intervention. It shouldn't be the case that some people claim that they don't know how to code and the LLM generated an entire project for them, while I can confidently claim that LLMs fall flat on their face almost every time I try to use them for more delicate business logic.