9 ms·
It's a definition based on practical results. That's a good definition, because it doesn't require we already know the exact implementation. It doesn't require
by nomel 8mo ago
It's a definition based on practical results. That's a good definition, because it doesn't require we already know the exact implementation. It doesn't require guessing, in a literal "put your money where your mouth is" way.
If it can do things as good as or better than humans, then either the AI has a type of general intelligence or the human does not.
Defining capabilities based on outcome rather than implementation should be very familiar to an engineer, of any kind, because that's how every unsolved implementation must start.
- irishcoffee 8mo agoDo you know how an LLM works? Can you describe it?
- nomel 8mo agoSorry, what do current LLM architectures have to do with this? It should be extremely clear to you that current LLM don't fit this definition. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation!!!!
- esafak 8mo agoDo you know how the human brain works? That science is still in its infancy but that's not stopped us.
- godelski 8mo ago> Do you know how the human brain works? To what degree of accuracy? Depending on how you answer I might answer yes but I might also answer no.
- irishcoffee 8mo agoHere is a run-down of how an LLM works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model > Do you know how the human brain works? That science is still in its infancy but that's not stopped us. Stopped us from doing what exactly?
- nomel 8mo agoI think a charitable interpretation of their comment is that it hasn't stopped us from practical, fruitful, use. We didn't need an understanding of how it worked, or even a word for intelligence, let alone a definition of it, to get good practical results.
- irishcoffee 8mo agoIt’s a statistical gradient descent prediction machine. I never said it wasn’t useful. It absolutely isn’t smart.
- nomel 8mo agoWhat is "it" you're referring to here? Nobody is talking about current LLM. And, we don't know if gradient decent will be involved, since the systems don't exist yet. Maybe it all be some runtime gradient decent. If there's an optimization problem involved in any part of the process, and numbers are involved, there's a near guarantee it will include gradient decent.
- tbrownaw 8mo agoWhat is the as-of date on what work is economically valuable and how much is available?
- nomel 8mo agoSorry, I don't understand the question, or how it relates. Are you asking for the current understanding of what specific parts of human intelligence are economically valuable?
- computably 8mo agoI'm pretty sure they were asking for a pinned date for definitions of "economically valuable" and "most (of total economic value)", specifically because, as previous comments noted, the definition and quantity of "economic value" vary over time. If AI hype is to be believed, and if we assume AGI has a slow takeoff, the economy will look very different in 2030, significantly shifting the goalposts for AGI relative to the same definition as of 2026.
- Jensson 8mo agoWell if humans can do economically valuable mental work the AI can't then its not AGI, don't you think? An AGI could learn that new job too and replace the human, so as long as we still have economically valuable mental work that only humans can do then we haven't reached AGI.
- nomel 8mo agoThis is a strange binary I don't understand. There are humans that can't do the work of some humans. Intelligence is, clearly, a spectrum. I don't see why a general intelligence would need to have capabilities far beyond a human, when just replacing somewhat lacking humans could upend large portions of the economy. Again, "it's not AGI" arguments will eventually require that some humans aren't considered intelligent, which is the point in time that we'll all be able to agree "ok, this is AGI".
- 8mo ago
- godelski 8mo ago> If it can do things as good as or better than humans, then either the AI has a type of general intelligence or the human does not. I don't buy that. By your definition every machine has a type of general intelligence. Not just a bog standard calculator, but also my broom. It doesn't matter if you slap "smart" on the side, I'm not going to call my washing machine "intelligent". Especially considering it's over a decade old. I don't think these definitions make anything any clearer. If anything, they make them less. They equate humans to mindless automata. They create AGI by sly definition and let the proposer declare success arbitrarily.
- nomel 8mo agoSorry, I assumed the context was cleared, with the article above. Here's what I meant: > If it can do things as good as or better than humans, in general, then either the AI has a type of general intelligence ...
- godelski 8mo agoSorry, I assumed the comment was clear, with your comment above. Here's what I meant: > By your definition every machine has a type of general intelligence. Not just a bog standard calculator, but also my broom. I really don't know of any human that can out perform a standard calculator at calculations. I'm sure there are humans that can beat them in some cases, but clearly the calculator is a better generalized numeric calculation machine. A task that used to represent a significant amount of economic activity. I assumed this was rather common knowledge given it featuring in multiple hit motion pictures[0]. [0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4846340 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4846340
- nomel 8mo agoI'm using the dictionary definition of "general": > General: 1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread. To me, a general intelligence is one that is not just specific: it's affecting or concerning all or most areas of intelligence. A calculator is a very specific, very inflexible, type of intelligence, so it's not, by definition, general. And, I'm not talking about the indirect applications of a calculator or a specific intelligence. If you want to argue that we don't need the concept of AGI, because something like specific experts could be enough to drastically change the economy, then sure! That would be true. But I think that's a slightly different, complimentary, conversation. Even then, say we have all these experts, then a system to intelligently dispatch problems to them...maybe that's a specific implementation of AGI that would work. I think how less dependent on human intelligence the economy becomes, and how more dependent on non-human decision makers it becomes, is a reasonable measure. This seems controversial, which I can't really understand. I'm in hardware engineering, so maybe I have a different perspective, but goals based on outcome are the only ones that actually matter, especially if nobody has done it before.