3 ms·

What does AGI mean to you? Transformers have approximate knowledge of many things. Is this not 'general'? Where is the goalpost here?

gslepak 6mo ago
> Transformers have approximate knowledge of many things. Is this not 'general'? Of course not. That's like saying the Encyclopedia Britannica is AGI. > What does AGI mean to you? I would define AGI as human-like machine intelligence (or superior). This is difficult for some people to understand because they don't understand what "human-like" means in the first place. Neuroscientists would be able to set some of these wayward computer scientists straight on this question.
- altruios 6mo ago
  > human-like But is that a hard requirement? Can a machine have Rat-like intelligence? Is all intelligence human-like (human-centric-mind-blindness-much?)? > Of course not. That's like saying the Encyclopedia Britannica is AGI. Well, I'd classify that as GK, general knowledge. Not artificial or intelligent. Let's consider a definition of intelligence as the act of 'manipulating data', have you a better general definition of intelligence?
  - gslepak 6mo ago
    > But is that a hard requirement? Yes. > Can a machine have Rat-like intelligence? Yes, and that would be closer to AGI than today's LLMs, because the fundamental principles and architecture is there.
    - altruios 6mo ago
      Okay. So to be clear, you believe that replicating/templating a brain is the ONLY way to make an intelligent machine? What makes you think that? That there are no other patterns of intelligence?
      - gslepak 6mo ago
        I can see how that would be implied by my comments so you're right to question that. The principles that are found in the brain are what gives qualification to "AGI", not the brain itself, so it's possible there are other architectures that would qualify. A few observations on LLMs that give the game away: - They require releases. You get a single binary blob and that blob is forever stuck at its so-called "intelligence" level. It never learns anything new. - They're stuck approaching the limit of human intelligence. This is because the technique cannot exceed human intelligence. I realize that OpenAI has made claims to the contrary, saying things like "oh our model found out some proof that was never proven before" — this doesn't count. It's a side effect of training on the Internet. In fact that proof probably did exist (in pieces) somewhere on the Internet, it just wasn't widely publicized. So, you'll know it's AGI when you no longer see companies releasing new models. AGI won't require new models because the architecture will be what matters as whatever models you have will be constantly updating themselves in real-time, just like the human brain does (and every other brain). And, you'll start to see the AIs actually outsmarting the smartest humans on the planet in every subject.
        altruios 6mo ago
        > - They require releases. You get a single binary blob and that blob is forever stuck at its so-called "intelligence" level. It never learns anything new. True. But learning isn't the same thing as intelligence. My father who has dementia and is unable to learn anything new due to memory issues is still 'intelligent'. > - They're stuck approaching the limit of human intelligence. Is general intelligence > human intelligence then? Is there some static 'human level' that I should be measuring myself against? There is considerable overlap between the smartest bear and the dumbest human. same is true with LLM's and humans how. What you seem to be describing isn't AG(eneral)I, but artificial greater intelligence.
        gslepak 6mo ago
        > What you seem to be describing isn't AG(eneral)I, but artificial greater intelligence. If you ignore what I said in answer to you earlier then perhaps it would make sense to draw this conclusion. But if you take the full context of what I said then no, it's clear that I am not referring to "artificial greater intelligence". Just in the previous comment I said that rats would qualify, because the architecture is what matters. Your example with dementia is clever but that's an example of the biological architecture breaking down. Please forgive the crude analogy but it's like asking if a house is still a house if it's been burned down partially. I suppose part of it is still a house.
- chabes 6mo ago
  Agreed. The widespread anthropomorphizing is getting so tiring. I blame it on the big companies in the space, but seeing intelligent folks regularly attributing intelligence to a complex autocomplete system is disappointing.

gslepak 6mo ago

> Transformers have approximate knowledge of many things. Is this not 'general'? Of course not. That's like saying the Encyclopedia Britannica is AGI. > What does AGI mean to you? I would define AGI as human-like machine intelligence (or superior). This is difficult for some people to understand because they don't understand what "human-like" means in the first place. Neuroscientists would be able to set some of these wayward computer scientists straight on this question.

altruios 6mo ago
> human-like But is that a hard requirement? Can a machine have Rat-like intelligence? Is all intelligence human-like (human-centric-mind-blindness-much?)? > Of course not. That's like saying the Encyclopedia Britannica is AGI. Well, I'd classify that as GK, general knowledge. Not artificial or intelligent. Let's consider a definition of intelligence as the act of 'manipulating data', have you a better general definition of intelligence?
- gslepak 6mo ago
  > But is that a hard requirement? Yes. > Can a machine have Rat-like intelligence? Yes, and that would be closer to AGI than today's LLMs, because the fundamental principles and architecture is there.
  - altruios 6mo ago
    Okay. So to be clear, you believe that replicating/templating a brain is the ONLY way to make an intelligent machine? What makes you think that? That there are no other patterns of intelligence?
    - gslepak 6mo ago
      I can see how that would be implied by my comments so you're right to question that. The principles that are found in the brain are what gives qualification to "AGI", not the brain itself, so it's possible there are other architectures that would qualify. A few observations on LLMs that give the game away: - They require releases. You get a single binary blob and that blob is forever stuck at its so-called "intelligence" level. It never learns anything new. - They're stuck approaching the limit of human intelligence. This is because the technique cannot exceed human intelligence. I realize that OpenAI has made claims to the contrary, saying things like "oh our model found out some proof that was never proven before" — this doesn't count. It's a side effect of training on the Internet. In fact that proof probably did exist (in pieces) somewhere on the Internet, it just wasn't widely publicized. So, you'll know it's AGI when you no longer see companies releasing new models. AGI won't require new models because the architecture will be what matters as whatever models you have will be constantly updating themselves in real-time, just like the human brain does (and every other brain). And, you'll start to see the AIs actually outsmarting the smartest humans on the planet in every subject.
      - altruios 6mo ago
        > - They require releases. You get a single binary blob and that blob is forever stuck at its so-called "intelligence" level. It never learns anything new. True. But learning isn't the same thing as intelligence. My father who has dementia and is unable to learn anything new due to memory issues is still 'intelligent'. > - They're stuck approaching the limit of human intelligence. Is general intelligence > human intelligence then? Is there some static 'human level' that I should be measuring myself against? There is considerable overlap between the smartest bear and the dumbest human. same is true with LLM's and humans how. What you seem to be describing isn't AG(eneral)I, but artificial greater intelligence.
        gslepak 6mo ago
        > What you seem to be describing isn't AG(eneral)I, but artificial greater intelligence. If you ignore what I said in answer to you earlier then perhaps it would make sense to draw this conclusion. But if you take the full context of what I said then no, it's clear that I am not referring to "artificial greater intelligence". Just in the previous comment I said that rats would qualify, because the architecture is what matters. Your example with dementia is clever but that's an example of the biological architecture breaking down. Please forgive the crude analogy but it's like asking if a house is still a house if it's been burned down partially. I suppose part of it is still a house.
chabes 6mo ago
Agreed. The widespread anthropomorphizing is getting so tiring. I blame it on the big companies in the space, but seeing intelligent folks regularly attributing intelligence to a complex autocomplete system is disappointing.