3 ms·

Most of humans don’t reach any of these levels.

by kolinko 1mo ago

zug_zug 1mo ago
But you have to acknowledge how uneven the playing field is. The AI has read every book that's ever been written, and can spend hours of compute time in a few seconds. I think if a person had those same advantages (e.g. could spend 5 hours thinking about what to say next) we could all hold outstanding conversations, or if we had read every book ever written I think many of us could write a very popular book, if we could read every singe company's P&L statement in a few seconds we could invest better than an index fund. What I'm pointing out here is that these models appear to be intelligent when they really are simply unimagineably knowledgeable. When you drop the time-constraints it starts to become more and more apparent that human intelligence scales better with time than AI does (much in the same way AI can burp out tons of code but make your codebase entirely illegible within a matter of months). Perhaps to simplify: my notion of intelligence is how much can you deduce with a constant set of starting context
- kolinko 1mo ago
  > I think if a person had those same advantages (e.g. could spend 5 hours thinking about what to say next) we could all hold outstanding conversations, or if we had read every book ever written I think many of us could write a very popular book, if we could read every singe company's P&L statement in a few seconds we could invest better than an index fund I’m not so sure of that - to get average outcomes in these fields it’s a matter of time, to get above average or extraordinary, you need talent/intelligence/taste. And the bar the parent set is at extraordinary.
- Al-Khwarizmi 1mo ago
  So now the bar is not only to be at the level of a human, but to achieve it without the natural advantages of being a machine, while still having the disadvantages (lack of embodiment, etc.). If you went back to when I started working on AI stuff 20+ years ago and described the capabilities of GPT-3 to people, the overwhelming majority would say it's a form of AGI. It's incredible how fast and far the bar moves.
Verdex 1mo ago
I would be willing to bet that any human for which we spend $100billion - $3 trillion (depending if you want to count single corporations or global totals) on in an attempt to make them as capable as possible would be able to reach all of those levels.
- howunfortunate 1mo ago
  I think I view humanity fairly positively, but I admit I would gladly take the other side of that bet
  - Verdex 1mo ago
    A quick search suggests that the most expensive education in the world is something like $100k. So like you spend a million times more than that and you still think you're not going to see some results?
    - jimbooonooo 1mo ago
      except you are missing the one versus many argument here. sure we could make one human much smarter, could we make endless copies with the same intelligence? no
      - strange_quark 1mo ago
        For $100 billion we could pay ivy-league level tuition for a million people. You don’t think investing that much in education would yield some good research or companies?
        howunfortunate 1mo ago
        That's not what the parent comment said though > any human for which we spend $100billion - $3 trillion...would be able to reach all of those levels
    - howunfortunate 1mo ago

Most of humans don’t reach any of these levels.

by kolinko 1mo ago

Most of humans don’t reach any of these levels.

But you have to acknowledge how uneven the playing field is. The AI has read every book that's ever been written, and can spend hours of compute time in a few seconds. I think if a person had those same advantages (e.g. could spend 5 hours thinking about what to say next) we could all hold outstanding conversations, or if we had read every book ever written I think many of us could write a very popular book, if we could read every singe company's P&L statement in a few seconds we could invest better than an index fund. What I'm pointing out here is that these models appear to be intelligent when they really are simply unimagineably knowledgeable. When you drop the time-constraints it starts to become more and more apparent that human intelligence scales better with time than AI does (much in the same way AI can burp out tons of code but make your codebase entirely illegible within a matter of months). Perhaps to simplify: my notion of intelligence is how much can you deduce with a constant set of starting context

kolinko 1mo ago
> I think if a person had those same advantages (e.g. could spend 5 hours thinking about what to say next) we could all hold outstanding conversations, or if we had read every book ever written I think many of us could write a very popular book, if we could read every singe company's P&L statement in a few seconds we could invest better than an index fund I’m not so sure of that - to get average outcomes in these fields it’s a matter of time, to get above average or extraordinary, you need talent/intelligence/taste. And the bar the parent set is at extraordinary.
Al-Khwarizmi 1mo ago
So now the bar is not only to be at the level of a human, but to achieve it without the natural advantages of being a machine, while still having the disadvantages (lack of embodiment, etc.). If you went back to when I started working on AI stuff 20+ years ago and described the capabilities of GPT-3 to people, the overwhelming majority would say it's a form of AGI. It's incredible how fast and far the bar moves.

Verdex 1mo ago

I would be willing to bet that any human for which we spend $100billion - $3 trillion (depending if you want to count single corporations or global totals) on in an attempt to make them as capable as possible would be able to reach all of those levels.

howunfortunate 1mo ago
I think I view humanity fairly positively, but I admit I would gladly take the other side of that bet
- Verdex 1mo ago
  A quick search suggests that the most expensive education in the world is something like $100k. So like you spend a million times more than that and you still think you're not going to see some results?
  - jimbooonooo 1mo ago
    except you are missing the one versus many argument here. sure we could make one human much smarter, could we make endless copies with the same intelligence? no
    - strange_quark 1mo ago
      For $100 billion we could pay ivy-league level tuition for a million people. You don’t think investing that much in education would yield some good research or companies?
      - howunfortunate 1mo ago
        That's not what the parent comment said though > any human for which we spend $100billion - $3 trillion...would be able to reach all of those levels
  - howunfortunate 1mo ago