6 ms·
They’ll devalue the term into something that makes it so. The common conception of it however, no I don’t believe we are anywhere close to it. It’s no differen
by no_wizard 1y ago
They’ll devalue the term into something that makes it so. The common conception of it however, no I don’t believe we are anywhere close to it.
It’s no different than how they moved the goalpost on the definition of AI at the start of this boom cycle
- gokuldas011011 1y agoDefinitely. When I started doing Machine Learning in 2018, AI wasn't a next word predictor.
- IanCal 1y agoWhen I was doing it in 2005 it definitely included that, and other far more basic things.
- computably 1y agoA subset of the field working on some particular applications is pretty different from redefining the term for marketing purposes.
- tempodox 1y agoTrue, but marketing has taken the lead to the great detriment of every other concern, no matter how important.
- burnte 1y agoThat makes sense, though, that in 13 years we went from basic text prediction to something more involved.
- signatoremo 1y agoThey won’t be able to. The whole idea of the panel is because of conflict of interests between MS and OpenAI, as MS won’t get revenue share post AGI declaration. MS will want it to be as high a bar as possible.
- ramses0 1y agoJesus, we've gone from Eliza and Bayes Spam Filters to being able to hold an "intelligent" conversation with a bot that can write code like: "make me a sandwich" => "ok, making sandwich.py, adding test, keeping track of a todo list, validating tests, etc..." We might not _quite_ be at the era of "I'm sorry I can't let you do that Dave...", but on the spectrum, and from the perspective of a lay-person, we're waaaaay closer than we've ever been? I'd counsel you to self-check what goalposts you might have moved in the past few years...
- IlikeKitties 1y agoI think "we" have accidentally cracked language from a computational perspective. The embedding of knowledge is incidental and we're far away from anything that "Generally Intelligent", let alone Advanced in that. LLMs do tend to make documented knowledge very searchable which is nice. But if you use these models everyday to do work of some kind that becomes pretty obvious that they aren't nearly as intelligent as they seem.
- OJFord 1y agoCompletely agree (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45627451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45627451) - LLMs are like the human-understood output of a hypothetical AGI, 'we' haven't cracked the knowledge & reasoning 'general intelligence' piece yet, imo, the bit that would hypothetically come before the LLM, feeding the information to it to convey to the human. I think that's going to turn out to be a different piece of the puzzle.
- forgotoldacc 1y agoThey're about as smart as a person who's kind of decent at every field. If you're a pro, it's pretty clear when it's BSing. But if you're not, the answers are often close enough. And just like humans, they can be very confidently wrong. When any person tells us something, we assume there's some degree of imperfection in their statements. If a nurse at a hospital tells you the doctor's office is 3 doors down on the right, most people will still look at the first and second doors to make sure those are wrong, then look at the nameplate on the third door to verify that it's right. If the doctor's name is Smith but the door says Stein, most people will pause and consider that maybe the nurse made a mistake. We might also consider that she's right, but the nameplate is wrong for whatever reason. So we verify that info by asking someone else, or going in and asking the doctor themselves. As a programmer, I'll ask other devs for some guidance on topics. Some people can be absolute geniuses but still dispense completely wrong advice from time to time. But oftentimes they'll lead me generally in the right way, but I still need to use my own head to analyze whether it's correct and implement the final solution myself. The way AI dispenses its advice is quite human. The big problem is it's harder to validate much of its info, and that's because we're using it alone in a room and not comparing it against anyone else's info.
- htrp 1y agoFSD would like a word
- mberning 1y agoThey have certainly tried to move the goalposts on this.
- waffletower 1y agoAs a full stack developer suffering from female sexual dysfunction who owns a Tesla, I am really confused about what you are trying to say.
- CoastalCoder 1y agoHave you tried praying to the Flying Spaghetti Deity?
- bravetraveler 1y agoAfter wrapping up with the Family Services Division, of course
- sgustard 1y agoSAE automation levels are the industry standard, not FSD (which is a brand name), and FSD is clearly Level 2 (driver is always responsible and must be engaged, at least in consumer teslas, I don't know about robotaxis). The question is if "AGI" is as well defined as "Level 5" as an independent standard.
- gehwartzen 1y agoThis is exactly why they will have an “expert panel” to make that determination. They wouldn’t make something up
- alterom 1y agoYeah, they wouldn't make something up, the expert panel would. Because everyone knows that once you call a group of people an expert panel, that automatically means they can't be biased /s
- some_furry 1y agoWhat exactly is the criteria for "expert" they're planning to use, and whomst among us can actually meet a realistic bar for expertise on the nature of consciousness?
- ctoth 1y agoType error: why do you need an expert on consciousness to weigh in on if something is AGI or not? I don't care what it feels like to be a paperclip maximizer I just care to not have my paperclips maximized tnx.
- Fuzzwah 1y agoFollower count on X. /s
- noobcoder 1y agoqualify: if you’ve hosted a podcast about simulation theory or own more than one turtleneck
- cmiles74 1y agoI expect that the "expert panel" is to ensure that OpenAI and Microsoft are in agreement on what "AGI" means in the context of this agreement.
- jimbokun 1y agoSo the expert panel can make something up instead.
- nl 1y ago> they moved the goalpost on the definition of AI at the start of this boom cycle Who is this "they" you speak of? It's true the definition has changed, but not in the direction you seem to think. Before this boom cycle the standard for "AI" was the Turing test. There is no doubt we have comprehensively passed that now.
- alterom 1y agoIs there, really?
- Vinnl 1y agoI don't think the Turing Test has been passed. The test was setup such that the interrogator knew that one of the two participants was a bot, and was trying to find out which. As far as I know, it's still relatively easy to find out you're talking to an LLM if you're actively looking for it.
- nl 1y agoNote that most tests where they actually try to pass the Turing Test (as opposed to being a useful chatbot) they do things like prompt it with a personality etc. eg: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10907317/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10907317/ It's widely accepted that is has been passed. Eg Wikipeida: > Since the mid-2020s, several large language models such as ChatGPT have passed modern, rigorous variants of the Turing test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
- gregw2 1y agoThis is a good thing. We really really Really should Not define as our success function for AI (our future-overlords?) the ability of computers to deceive humans about what they are. The Turing Test was a clever twist on (avoiding) defining intelligence 80 years ago. Going forward, valuing it should be discarded post-haste by any serious researcher or engineer or message-board-philosopher, if not for ethical reasons then for not-promoting spam/slop reasons.
- yndoendo 1y ago
- ksynwa 1y agoWasn't there already a report that stated Microsoft and OpenAI understand AGI as something like 100 billion dollars in revenue for the purpose of their agreements? Even that seems like a pipe dream at the moment.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- dr_dshiv 1y ago“Moving the goalposts” in AI usually means the opposite of devaluing the term. Peter Norvig (former research director at Google and author of the most popular textbook on AI) offers a mainstream perspective that AGI is already here: https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-already-here https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-... If you described all the current capabilities of AI to 100 experts 10 years ago, they’d likely agree that the capabilities constitute AGI. Yet, over time, the public will expect AGI to be capable of much, much more.
- r_lee 1y agoI don't see why anyone would consider the state of AI today to be AGI? it's basically a glorified generator stuck to a query engine today's models are not able to think independently, nor are they conscious or able to mutate themselves to gain new information on the fly or make memories other than half baked solutions with putting stuff in the context window which just makes it use that to generate stuff related to it, imitating a story basically. they're powerful when paired with a human operator, I.e. they "do" as told, but that is not "AGI" in my book
- Workaccount2 1y agoFor a long time the turing test was the bar for AGI. Then it blew past that and now, what I think is honestly happening, is that we don't really have the grip on "what is intelligence" that we thought we had. Our sample size for intelligence is essentially 1, so it might take a while to get a grip again.
- nine_k 1y agoConsider: "Artificial two-star General intelligence". I mean, once they "reach AGI", they will need a scale to measure advances within it.
- jimbokun 1y agoWell humans at that point probably won't be able to adequately evaluate intelligence at that level so the AIs will have to evaluate each other.
- tempodox 1y ago> They’ll devalue the term Exactly. As soon as the money runs out, “AGI” will be whatever they’ve got by then.
- bartread 1y agoI agree: it is more than faintly infuriating that when people say AI what the vast majority mean is LLMs. But, at the same time, we have clearly passed a significant inflection point in the usefulness of this class of AI, and have progressed substantially beyond that inflection point as well. So I don't really buy into the idea tha OpenAI have gone out of their way to foist a watered down view of AI upon the masses. I'm not completely absolving them but I'd probably be more inclined to point the finger at shabby and imprecise journalism from both tech and non-tech outlets, along with a ton of influencers and grifters jumping on the bandwagon. And let's be real: everyone's lapped it up because they've wanted to - because this is the first time any of them have encountered actually useful AI of any class that they can directly interact with. It seems powerful, mysterious, perhaps even agical, and maybe more than a little bit scary. As a CTO how do you think it would have gone if I'd spent my time correcting peers, team members, consultants, salespeople, and the rest to the effect that, no, this isn't AI, it's one type of AI, it's an LLM, when ChatGPT became widely available? When a lot of these people, with no help or guidance from me, were already using it to do useful transformations and analyses on text? It would have led to a huge number of unproductive and timewasting conversation, and I would have seemed like a stick in the mud. Sometimes you just have to ride the wave, because the only other choice is to be swamped by it and drown. Regardless of what limitations "AGI" has, it'll be given that monicker when a lot of people - many of them laypeople - feel like it's good enough. Whether or not that happens before the current LLM bubble bursts... tough to say.