4 ms·
> Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity. We’re introducing updates to ChatGPT that improve everyday conversatio
by ilaksh 2mo ago
> Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity. We’re introducing updates to ChatGPT that improve everyday conversations while expanding access for Free users.
This clearly implies that they believe ChatGPT models are AGI and are now willing to say it out loud.
Which I think is a fair interpretation of the term. They are general purpose intelligence in that you can get help from them about almost anything. They are not like narrow single purpose AI models.
I don't think we need that term to mean "can completely emulate a human" or "can do every task any human on earth can do as well as them".
It also needs to be differentiated from ASI with godlike powers many times greater than human.
- kkoncevicius 2mo agoIf we could show the current models to someone like Alan Turing, I am sure he would conclude that we have AGI.
- stymaar 2mo agoAnd after half an hour using it he'd just admit that his test was way too simple as these models are still way too dumb
- klibertp 2mo agoI think of the Turing test as one of the starting lines, along with image recognition ("a summer break project for a group of grad students" resisted being solved for decades). It is a huge leap. Now we can start talking about "intelligence" at all - we really couldn't before. That we're still hovering barely above the starting line is a separate matter (also worth noting, of course).
- stavros 2mo agoHow are the models too dumb? How are they dumber than the average person? I wonder if anyone gave Claude an IQ test (the one for humans).
- ilaksh 2mo agoYes there are a few sites with IQ test benchmarks. The frontier models come up around 130 or 140 depending on which model/test.
- stavros 2mo agoThat tracks, I wonder what the people who say that the models are too dumb expect to see. Miracles?
- stymaar 2mo agoNot making mistakes my four years old would not. They are definitely smart enough to be useful, but dumb enough in their weak spots not to deserve the "general intelligence" qualifier.
- nearbuy 2mo agoIt also looks like they're saturating the test, with one LLM hitting the maximum possible score. (https://www.trackingai.org/home https://www.trackingai.org/home) The test wasn't made to accurately measure IQs that high.
- hluska 2mo agoDumb is too simplistic, but they sure don’t pass for being human. That would be the intent of a Turing test… not IQ.
- jaccola 2mo agoI don’t think he would. The Turing Test as originally formulated is a bit ambiguous but by most non-incentivised interpretations LLMs do not pass it. In the original test the evaluator knew one was a machine and one a human and could have conversations of arbitrary length.
- throwatdem12311 2mo agoYou say that they pass the Turing test yet every post on HN complains about the way LLMs write so clearly they haven’t passed it yet because we can still tell it’s a bot.
- hk__2 2mo agoI think we’re just adapting. LLM felt kind of magical at first, and now we’re all experts in detecting AI slope.
- pinkgolem 2mo agoYou can also change the writing style with a prompt quit easily, if the same person would publish millions of articles, we would also recognize them.
- PunchTornado 2mo agoI don't understand. do you think that people can't figure it out if they speak with llms or not from a few turns?
- quantumspandex 2mo agoWe don't train current LLMs to mimic the average human's writing style. We train it to be smart, helpful, and knowledgable, too knowledgeable for a human. We can easily train a LLM to pass the Turing test if we wanted to, but then it would just sound dumb or biased.
- throwatdem12311 2mo ago> but it would just sound dumb or biased We have one of those: Grok.
- hobofan 2mo agoYes, and it's indistinguishable from the average X user.
- chippiewill 2mo agoTuring was a helluva smart guy, but he doesn't have the benefit of hindsight.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- kubb 2mo ago> This clearly implies that they believe ChatGPT models are AGI and are now willing to say it out loud. Well, the models are smart enough to point out why this is wrong.
- lostmsu 2mo agoThey were trained to do that specifically, don't you think?
- andai 2mo ago>It also needs to be differentiated from ASI with godlike powers many times greater than human. Wasn't there a thread the other day about how very few humans on earth can understand the new math proofs? Although "with sufficient study" vs "not even with unlimited study" are probably worth distinguishing there.
- ilaksh 2mo agoWhich brings up another point in that we should have a term that distinguished between super intelligence in some capacity and godlike super intelligence.
- Alifatisk 2mo ago> Wasn't there a thread the other day about how very few humans on earth can understand the new math proofs? Do you perhaps have a link to it? Tried to search around but couldn’t find it. Would love to read it
- andai 2mo ago> "Already, there are very few mathematicians qualified to verify OpenAI’s new results. As progress continues, that number will approach zero." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49165570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49165570 > When OpenAI posted about their 10 breakthroughs, I saw lots of career research mathematicians say things mostly along the lines of “I don’t understand any of this it’s way over my head”. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49182779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49182779 > They're publishing machine checkable proofs because that's the only way they, themselves, can check them. > They don't understand the math either. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49183817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49183817
- Alifatisk 2mo agoThank you!
- taytus 2mo ago[flagged]
- lukevp 2mo agoWell your comment adds no value and is just offensive. Why don’t you argue a counterpoint?
- orbital-decay 2mo agoIt doesn't fit their own definition of AGI, although it's inevitably vague [0]: >artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work [0] https://openai.com/charter/ https://openai.com/charter/
- rrr_oh_man 2mo agoI think that's the crux. As soon as something turns into a commodity, it will be priced as a commodity. It stops being economically valuable and can only be economically viable at scale. Take mathematical calculations, styrofoam, LCD screens, ice cubes, embroidery (try searching for "computer work blouses"!), texts, navigation. The thing itself costs nothing, the service and theater around it becomes everything.
- ozgung 2mo agoIt’s interesting that they haven’t declared AGI yet, even as a PR stunt. It can be like a “pre-revenue” tactic. They are pre-AGI so investors can still pour money.
- tristanj 2mo agoPublic models are months behind what the labs have internally, and I believe OAI's upcoming model is so advanced they consider it AGI. OAI is not going to announce anything until their next model officially releases (allegedly later this month).
- whazor 2mo agoMy ChatGPT gives me lots of “artificial general intelligence” on a daily basis that I don’t possess.
- khalic 2mo agook so first the industry takes the AI term, uses it with a very vague resemblance to what it used to mean, for marketing purpose, then they latch on to the AGI term to talk about what people used to consider AI. Now there is no sign of actual AGI happening any time soon, so we're going to reinterpret AGI to mean something diminutive like a chatbot? Don't you see a problem here? Terms are used to describe the world and need a semblance of stability so we don't end up in a race to the bottom just so investors can feel good.
- tristanj 2mo ago> Now there is no sign of actual AGI happening any time soon Do you genuinely hold this position, or do you not realize how far the goalposts have shifted? In 2022, prominent AI critic Gary Marcus offered to bet $100,000 that we wouldn't have AGI by 2029. https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/dear-elon-musk-here-are-five-things https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/dear-elon-musk-here-are-fi... Because the definition of AGI is unclear, he defined that AGI would be achieved if an AI model could do THREE of the five following tasks: - In 2029, AI will not be able to watch a movie and tell you accurately what is going on (what I called the comprehension challenge in The New Yorker, in 2014). Who are the characters? What are their conflicts and motivations? etc. - In 2029, AI will not be able to read a novel and reliably answer questions about plot, character, conflicts, motivations, etc. Key will be going beyond the literal text, as Davis and I explain in Rebooting AI. - In 2029, AI will not be able to work as a competent cook in an arbitrary kitchen (extending Steve Wozniak’s cup of coffee benchmark). - In 2029, AI will not be able to reliably construct bug-free code of more than 10,000 lines from natural language specification or by interactions with a non-expert user. [Gluing together code from existing libraries doesn’t count.] - In 2029, AI will not be able to take arbitrary proofs from the mathematical literature written in natural language and convert them into a symbolic form suitable for symbolic verification. Today's AI models can do FOUR of these five. Using 2022 goalposts, we already have AGI. We blew past these goalposts months ago, and nobody noticed.
- khalic 2mo agoThat’s his definition and in no way a universal one. In the meantime, it’s still very easy to differentiate between an AI and a human in a chat. You just need to know the quirks of these systems. Like counting letters, hitting the safeguards, etc. So call me when one of them can pass the Turing test against me and then we can talk about AGI
- BedVibe_Studios 2mo agoI found answers from free tier models to be harmful, so helping humans in general isn't what I actually noticed here.
- unreal6 2mo agoDo you have an example? What type of harm?
- pure_magic 2mo agoI don't think this means they believe ChatGPT is AGI.
- jonaustin 2mo ago> This clearly implies that they believe ChatGPT models are AGI and are now willing to say it out loud. > Which I think is a fair interpretation of the term You can't be serious... Case in point - I just asked GPT Sol High to give me a weekly update of local ai changes. Here's it's first update, which is complete and utter garbage; i.e. it's a lot of words that says absolutely nothing. That's just a random word generator; AGI? Not even remotely in the ballpark. https://chatgpt.com/share/6a761ec1-4b38-83ea-a8f7-8f02084e6300 https://chatgpt.com/share/6a761ec1-4b38-83ea-a8f7-8f02084e63...
- braebo 2mo agoFable is AGI. All other models are dumb as bricks in comparison.