4 ms·

> I'd be curious to hear takes on what would make you think Astra is yet to be AGI, and what would still need to be achieved for this to effectively be AGI from

by Yizahi 1mo ago

> I'd be curious to hear takes on what would make you think Astra is yet to be AGI, and what would still need to be achieved for this to effectively be AGI from this point forward. Can Astra, or any other model explain how exactly it reached this or that output result? Start with a simple query of asking to add 55+66 for example. (no LLM program can do that) Can Astra, or any other model refuse to answer or go on "thinking" in a orthogonal direction on it's own? That's just two quick ideas, I'm pretty sure cognition scientists can invent better and wider range of checks.

ObnoxiousProxy 1mo ago
In my opinion this is goal post moving. Humans do many things that we cannot fully explain either without post decision rationalization, and not all intelligent humans are deeply introspective.
- desterothx 1mo ago
  I'm so sick of every criticism being explained away as goal post moving. Can anyone give me the discussion where we came to some concensus of what the goals were? How can I know when I'm moving a goalpost when no one told me the goals?
intenex 1mo ago
I'm confused what you mean by the query of adding 55 + 66. I asked 5.6 Sol on Medium (but pretty sure any model would work at any level) this query: "Can you add 55 to 66 and explain how you reached that output result" And received this answer: "55 + 66 = 121. Add the tens: 50 + 60 = 110. Add the ones: 5 + 6 = 11. Combine them: 110 + 11 = 121." Do you mean something else? Do humans do something better than this?
- Yizahi 1mo ago
  But that's not how LLM program actually did calculation, like not even close enough to claim variability or something. So what it does, is generated a whole load of bunk, in this example what humans could do to add two numbers. In other words, this supposed AGI can't explain what it is doing, at all. This is in my opinion at minimum one critical sign that there is no intelligence on the other side of the glass, yet.
  - seventhtiger 1mo ago
    Can any human explain how they do 55+66 to the same standard?
    - Yizahi 1mo ago
      Of course we can, we can simply speak out what steps are we doing to add numbers and it will correlate pretty much exactly to the actual actions done. Can tell to a similar query that first I add 5+6 and get 11, then I write down 1 and carry 1 to the next decimal space. Then I add 5+6 plus 1 I carried, then get 12 and write 121 as a final answer. That's the description of the real addition process I did in my head. LLMs on the other hand will do some pretty unconventional stuff, like estimating the closest numbers not exactly matching, then evaluating probability spread of their low-precision sums, create some lookup tables, then do some dances combining this and that, making a higher precision estimations in a sequence, and eventually arriving to a single result. But no LLM will reply with these procedure steps to the simple "explain how you did it" query, simply because it is way less probable answer, therefore it won't be chosen.

by Yizahi 1mo ago

ObnoxiousProxy 1mo ago

In my opinion this is goal post moving. Humans do many things that we cannot fully explain either without post decision rationalization, and not all intelligent humans are deeply introspective.

desterothx 1mo ago
I'm so sick of every criticism being explained away as goal post moving. Can anyone give me the discussion where we came to some concensus of what the goals were? How can I know when I'm moving a goalpost when no one told me the goals?

intenex 1mo ago

I'm confused what you mean by the query of adding 55 + 66. I asked 5.6 Sol on Medium (but pretty sure any model would work at any level) this query: "Can you add 55 to 66 and explain how you reached that output result" And received this answer: "55 + 66 = 121. Add the tens: 50 + 60 = 110. Add the ones: 5 + 6 = 11. Combine them: 110 + 11 = 121." Do you mean something else? Do humans do something better than this?

Yizahi 1mo ago
But that's not how LLM program actually did calculation, like not even close enough to claim variability or something. So what it does, is generated a whole load of bunk, in this example what humans could do to add two numbers. In other words, this supposed AGI can't explain what it is doing, at all. This is in my opinion at minimum one critical sign that there is no intelligence on the other side of the glass, yet.
- seventhtiger 1mo ago
  Can any human explain how they do 55+66 to the same standard?
  - Yizahi 1mo ago
    Of course we can, we can simply speak out what steps are we doing to add numbers and it will correlate pretty much exactly to the actual actions done. Can tell to a similar query that first I add 5+6 and get 11, then I write down 1 and carry 1 to the next decimal space. Then I add 5+6 plus 1 I carried, then get 12 and write 121 as a final answer. That's the description of the real addition process I did in my head. LLMs on the other hand will do some pretty unconventional stuff, like estimating the closest numbers not exactly matching, then evaluating probability spread of their low-precision sums, create some lookup tables, then do some dances combining this and that, making a higher precision estimations in a sequence, and eventually arriving to a single result. But no LLM will reply with these procedure steps to the simple "explain how you did it" query, simply because it is way less probable answer, therefore it won't be chosen.