4 ms·

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 v

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.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- root_axis 1y ago
  Generally speaking, anyone can learn to use any tool. This isn't true of generative AI systems which can only learn through specialized training with meticulously curated data sets.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Muromec 1y ago
    >can only learn through specialized training with meticulously curated data sets. but so do I!
    - root_axis 1y ago
      This isn't true. A curated data set can greatly increase learning efficiency in some cases, but it's not strictly necessary and represents only a fraction of how people learn. Additionally, all curated data sets were created by humans in the first place, a feat that language models could never achieve if we did not program them to do so.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    People physically unable to use the tool can't learn to use it. This isn't necessarily my view, but one could make a pretty easy argument that the LLMs we have today can't drive a car only because they aren't physically able to control the car.
    - root_axis 1y ago
      > but one could make a pretty easy argument that the LLMs we have today can't drive a car only because they aren't physically able to control the car. Of course they can. We already have computer controlled car systems, the reason LLMs aren't used to drive them is because AI systems that specialize in text are a poor choice for driving - specialized driving models will always outperform them for a variety of technical reasons.
      - _heimdall 1y ago
        We have compute controlled automobiles, not LLM controlled automobiles. That was my whole point. Maybe in theory an LLM could learn to drive a car, but they can't today because they don't physically have access to cars they could try to drive just like a person who can't learn to use a tool because they're physically limited from using it.
        root_axis 1y ago
        It doesn't make sense to connect a LLM to a car, that could never work because they are trained offline using curated data sets.
ben_w 1y ago
Generality is a continuous value, not a boolean; turned out that "AGI" was poorly defined, and because of that most people were putting the cut-off threshold in different places. Likewise for "intelligent", and even "artificial". So no, ChatGPT can't drive a car*. But it knows more about car repairs, defensive driving, global road features (geoguesser), road signs in every language, and how to design safe roads, than I'm ever likely to. * It can also run python scripts with machine vision stuff, but sadly that's still not sufficient to drive a car… well, to drive one safety, anyway.
KHRZ 1y ago
You can literally today prompt ChatGPT with API instructions to drive a car, then feed it images of a car's window outlooks and have it generate commands for the car (JSON schema restricted structured commands if you like). Text can represent any data thus yes, it is general.
- threeseed 1y ago
  > JSON schema restricted structured commands if you like How about we have ChatGPT start with a simple task like reliably generating JSON schema when asked to. Hint: it will fail.
  - voidspark 1y ago
    ChatGPT can write a working Python script to generate the Json. It can call a library to do that.
    - dd_xplore 1y ago
      But it cannot think on it's own! Billions of years of evolution couldn't bring human level 'AGI' to many many species, and we think a mere LLM company could do so. AGI isn't just a language model, there's tons of things baked into dna(the way brain functions, it's structure when it grows etc). It's not simply neuron interactions as well. The complexity is mind boggling
      - voidspark 1y ago
        Humans and other primates are only a million years apart. Animals are quite intelligent.
celdon25 1y ago
Text can be a carrier for any type of signal. The problem gets reduced to that of an interface definition. It’s probably not going to be ideal for driving cars, but if the latency, signal quality, and accuracy is within acceptable constraints, what else is stopping it? This doesn’t imply that it’s ideal for driving cars, but to say that it’s not capable of driving general intelligence is incorrect in my view.
voidspark 1y ago
The latest models are natively multimodal. Gemini, GPT-4o, Llama 4. Same model trained on audio, video, images, text - not separate specialized components stitched together.

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.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
root_axis 1y ago
Generally speaking, anyone can learn to use any tool. This isn't true of generative AI systems which can only learn through specialized training with meticulously curated data sets.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Muromec 1y ago
  >can only learn through specialized training with meticulously curated data sets. but so do I!
  - root_axis 1y ago
    This isn't true. A curated data set can greatly increase learning efficiency in some cases, but it's not strictly necessary and represents only a fraction of how people learn. Additionally, all curated data sets were created by humans in the first place, a feat that language models could never achieve if we did not program them to do so.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  People physically unable to use the tool can't learn to use it. This isn't necessarily my view, but one could make a pretty easy argument that the LLMs we have today can't drive a car only because they aren't physically able to control the car.
  - root_axis 1y ago
    > but one could make a pretty easy argument that the LLMs we have today can't drive a car only because they aren't physically able to control the car. Of course they can. We already have computer controlled car systems, the reason LLMs aren't used to drive them is because AI systems that specialize in text are a poor choice for driving - specialized driving models will always outperform them for a variety of technical reasons.
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      We have compute controlled automobiles, not LLM controlled automobiles. That was my whole point. Maybe in theory an LLM could learn to drive a car, but they can't today because they don't physically have access to cars they could try to drive just like a person who can't learn to use a tool because they're physically limited from using it.
      - root_axis 1y ago
        It doesn't make sense to connect a LLM to a car, that could never work because they are trained offline using curated data sets.

ben_w 1y ago

Generality is a continuous value, not a boolean; turned out that "AGI" was poorly defined, and because of that most people were putting the cut-off threshold in different places. Likewise for "intelligent", and even "artificial". So no, ChatGPT can't drive a car*. But it knows more about car repairs, defensive driving, global road features (geoguesser), road signs in every language, and how to design safe roads, than I'm ever likely to. * It can also run python scripts with machine vision stuff, but sadly that's still not sufficient to drive a car… well, to drive one safety, anyway.

KHRZ 1y ago

You can literally today prompt ChatGPT with API instructions to drive a car, then feed it images of a car's window outlooks and have it generate commands for the car (JSON schema restricted structured commands if you like). Text can represent any data thus yes, it is general.

threeseed 1y ago
> JSON schema restricted structured commands if you like How about we have ChatGPT start with a simple task like reliably generating JSON schema when asked to. Hint: it will fail.
- voidspark 1y ago
  ChatGPT can write a working Python script to generate the Json. It can call a library to do that.
  - dd_xplore 1y ago
    But it cannot think on it's own! Billions of years of evolution couldn't bring human level 'AGI' to many many species, and we think a mere LLM company could do so. AGI isn't just a language model, there's tons of things baked into dna(the way brain functions, it's structure when it grows etc). It's not simply neuron interactions as well. The complexity is mind boggling
    - voidspark 1y ago
      Humans and other primates are only a million years apart. Animals are quite intelligent.

celdon25 1y ago

Text can be a carrier for any type of signal. The problem gets reduced to that of an interface definition. It’s probably not going to be ideal for driving cars, but if the latency, signal quality, and accuracy is within acceptable constraints, what else is stopping it? This doesn’t imply that it’s ideal for driving cars, but to say that it’s not capable of driving general intelligence is incorrect in my view.

voidspark 1y ago

The latest models are natively multimodal. Gemini, GPT-4o, Llama 4. Same model trained on audio, video, images, text - not separate specialized components stitched together.