3 ms·

I think they're saying people generally don't learn language or mathematics by learning the basic rules and deducing everything else

Jensson 1y ago
Humanity did exactly that though, so an AGI should be capable of the same feat given enough time.
- mofeien 1y ago
  There is the concept of n-t-AGI, which is capable of performing tasks that would take n humans t time. So a single AI system that is capable of rediscovering much of science from basic principles could be classified as something like 10'000'000humans-2500years-AGI, which could already be reasonably considered artificial superintelligence.
- adastra22 1y ago
  Humanity did it through A LOT of collective trial and error. Evolution is a powerful algorithm, but not a very smart one.
- _w1tm 1y ago
  Billions of humans did that over hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe it would only take thousands of years for AGI?
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > Humanity did exactly that though No, it mostly didn't, it continued (continues, as every human is continuously interlacing “training” and “inferencing”) training on large volumes of ground truth for a very long time, including both natural and synthetic data; it didn't reason everything beyond some basic training on first principles. At a minimum, something that looks broadly like one of today's AI models would need either a method of continuously finetuning its own weights with a suitable evaluation function or,if it was going to rely on in-context learning, would need many orders of magnitude larger context, than any model today. And that's not a “this is enough to likely work” thing, but “this is the minimum for the their to even be a plausible mechnanism to incorporate the information necessary for it to work” one.
  - beefnugs 1y ago
    Yeah this original poster is only talking about the "theoretical" part of intelligence, and somehow completely forgetting about the "practical experimental" which is the only way to solidify and improve any theoretical things it comes up with

Jensson 1y ago

Humanity did exactly that though, so an AGI should be capable of the same feat given enough time.

mofeien 1y ago
There is the concept of n-t-AGI, which is capable of performing tasks that would take n humans t time. So a single AI system that is capable of rediscovering much of science from basic principles could be classified as something like 10'000'000humans-2500years-AGI, which could already be reasonably considered artificial superintelligence.
adastra22 1y ago
Humanity did it through A LOT of collective trial and error. Evolution is a powerful algorithm, but not a very smart one.
_w1tm 1y ago
Billions of humans did that over hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe it would only take thousands of years for AGI?
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Humanity did exactly that though No, it mostly didn't, it continued (continues, as every human is continuously interlacing “training” and “inferencing”) training on large volumes of ground truth for a very long time, including both natural and synthetic data; it didn't reason everything beyond some basic training on first principles. At a minimum, something that looks broadly like one of today's AI models would need either a method of continuously finetuning its own weights with a suitable evaluation function or,if it was going to rely on in-context learning, would need many orders of magnitude larger context, than any model today. And that's not a “this is enough to likely work” thing, but “this is the minimum for the their to even be a plausible mechnanism to incorporate the information necessary for it to work” one.
- beefnugs 1y ago
  Yeah this original poster is only talking about the "theoretical" part of intelligence, and somehow completely forgetting about the "practical experimental" which is the only way to solidify and improve any theoretical things it comes up with