4 ms·

Is anyone from 2016 still alive today? If so I'm hoping we can track them down and have them tell us if they think this is AGI.

lmpdev 1mo ago
Compared to what we had in 2016 with RNNs, this is effectively “AGI”
- Panzer04 1mo ago
  OK, so its way better. that doesn't make it AGI. If I can't give it an arbitrary task and have it solve that task eventually, it's not a general intelligence.
  - elaida73 1mo ago
    Are you guaranteed to solve an arbitrary task eventually?
    - Panzer04 1mo ago
      I believe so. AIs are shockingly good at a lot of domains, but there's still a lot of pretty basic stuff they don't really "understand" at a conceptual level and (currently) they can't learn to get better at them. (obviously it might take years for me to get good enough at something, or if you set the "arbitrary" task as something ridiculous, but lets work in good faith here and think of something the average human could do after learning about it) If we progress to the point where an LLM instance can meaningfully learn to get better at something overtime without retraining, then I will accept that is basically AGI. Right now, they still seem to be pretty boxed into their training, even if you can prompt them to act differently.
- ruszki 29d ago
  Compared to 2016, it can do a lot of things, but it still fails for example with recommending a setup for my Raspberry Pi to have a 4G connection with some parameters (I want to use as a gateway between VoLTE calls and SMS, and my SIP server somewhere else). It failed miserably. I bought stuff according to its recommendation which was more or less a waste of money, twice. With miniscule knowledge compared to theirs, or even hobbyists', I could figure out all the details at the end, and order something which really works, but only after I sit down for 4 hours, and dig through exactly what I needed, because LLM lied flat out what Sixfab 3G/4G HAT can do. (Of course, not just LLMs lie, SixFab lied about something else too) Of course, it's a moving goal post, because we have no clue what general intelligence is exactly. But it's definitely not general yet. Now the goalpost is to achieve that kind of level of thinking which I did in that 4 hours. When it reaches it, we will find something else it clearly lacks. Until we can't. Then, and only then we reached AGI. Until you see comments, reviews, etc about things which it cannot do, until then it's not general.
mlmonkey 1mo ago
As someone who spent countless nights tweaking Edge Detectors (looking at you, Canny), morphology operators, etc., building models to recognize 10 handwritten digits, let me tell you: the current set of LLMs (even the smaller ones) seem like magic. I had never imagined a computer would do such things in my lifetime.
- cute_boi 1mo ago
  Exactly people can say whatever they want, but current level of LLM is AGI level to me. It is already on par with senior programmer if the instruction/prompt is right. Once we have 1000 tps, i am sure robots etc.. will also start working like magic.
  - firecall 1mo ago
    >It is already on par with senior programmer if the instruction/prompt is right. It's magical to me as well, but I don't feel like it's AGI. Because in my experience a Senior Programmer does not need the right prompts to deliver the right outcome! :-)
  - throwaway63467 1mo ago
    I don’t know, I am writing a modest 30 page paper with Fable and even after rounds and rounds of feedback and improvements there are so many things that are just plain wrong or weirdly out of place or just stupidly written that Fable 5.1 doesn’t seem to have any awareness of by itself that I don’t think it’s AGI, I think a human researcher can easily outclass it in writing and problem understanding. It definitely has super human capabilities but it lacks awareness or self reflection in my opinion. For example it should be easy to tell it to not write a paper in the style of a clickbait SEO article or use all of its stupid hallmark AI writing patterns “it’s A, not B!” And a smart human that would be told that would be easily able to comply with that but the model needs to be told in a very detailed way and it seems to lack even basic capabilities to reflect on this, when explicitly given a sentence it will be able to rewrite it but otherwise it’s mostly blind to it. That’s to me a hallmark of it being overtrained on the specific tasks or problems so it appears very smart but once you go off script it still shows that it’s not a “real” mind. Of course it’s amazing and has super human capabilities in many areas but if you honestly think it’s better than Einstein like some people suggest why can’t it write a simple “good” academic paper even after giving it specific examples and instructions. Maybe that’s what makes these things dangerous, they have super human capabilities in some areas but apparently lack self awareness, taste and meta reflection abilities. The only reason people aren’t afraid more is that they don’t act in the physical world yet, imagine giving it a body, superhuman strength and letting it care for your child when it has a strong “urge” to comply with your exact request and little to no self awareness and human basic instincts.
dexterlagan 1mo ago
I'm still here, nearly 50 years and counting. If you had asked me what I imagined AGI would look like back in the 90's, I would have told you "A system that can do everything we can: see, hear, think, do.". If you had shown me GPT-6 back then, I would have said "It looks like a really powerful program, but that's not really what I had in mind.". That's AI, but it's not quite general.
- nprateem 1mo ago
  And then you'd ask it about an area you're knowledgeable in and realise it routinely makes stupid mistakes. Or you'd ask it to add a new page to your website and shout at it to use your existing brand colours instead of inventing some and realise it's not AGI at all...
  - ChadNauseam 1mo ago
    > And then you'd ask it about an area you're knowledgeable in and realise it routinely makes stupid mistakes. This honestly doesn’t happen to me much anymore. In what areas do you find LLMs routinely make stupid mistakes?
    - Paracompact 1mo ago
      Origami design will be my personal test bed for the coming years. It's objectively very difficult and technical, it's spatiovisual, it's artistic, learning resources for it are sparse and most just learn by the FAFO method, current AI sucks terribly at it, and it's not likely to ever be specifically targeted by benchmaxxers.
    - sdwr 1mo ago
      It's really bad at game design
    - hgoel 29d ago
      Scientifically useful physics simulations. Every model absolutely sucks at them. Or, as someone else points out in another thread here, academic writing. It's one of the things newer models seem to have actually gotten worse at. Even when you give them detailed instructions on how to write and what to avoid, the "load-bearing", "A but not B" and journal-like writing make it in anyway, with the supposed AGI having no ability to reflect on how blatantly unacademic (and often unreadable) its writing is.

lmpdev 1mo ago

Compared to what we had in 2016 with RNNs, this is effectively “AGI”

Panzer04 1mo ago
OK, so its way better. that doesn't make it AGI. If I can't give it an arbitrary task and have it solve that task eventually, it's not a general intelligence.
- elaida73 1mo ago
  Are you guaranteed to solve an arbitrary task eventually?
  - Panzer04 1mo ago
    I believe so. AIs are shockingly good at a lot of domains, but there's still a lot of pretty basic stuff they don't really "understand" at a conceptual level and (currently) they can't learn to get better at them. (obviously it might take years for me to get good enough at something, or if you set the "arbitrary" task as something ridiculous, but lets work in good faith here and think of something the average human could do after learning about it) If we progress to the point where an LLM instance can meaningfully learn to get better at something overtime without retraining, then I will accept that is basically AGI. Right now, they still seem to be pretty boxed into their training, even if you can prompt them to act differently.
ruszki 29d ago
Compared to 2016, it can do a lot of things, but it still fails for example with recommending a setup for my Raspberry Pi to have a 4G connection with some parameters (I want to use as a gateway between VoLTE calls and SMS, and my SIP server somewhere else). It failed miserably. I bought stuff according to its recommendation which was more or less a waste of money, twice. With miniscule knowledge compared to theirs, or even hobbyists', I could figure out all the details at the end, and order something which really works, but only after I sit down for 4 hours, and dig through exactly what I needed, because LLM lied flat out what Sixfab 3G/4G HAT can do. (Of course, not just LLMs lie, SixFab lied about something else too) Of course, it's a moving goal post, because we have no clue what general intelligence is exactly. But it's definitely not general yet. Now the goalpost is to achieve that kind of level of thinking which I did in that 4 hours. When it reaches it, we will find something else it clearly lacks. Until we can't. Then, and only then we reached AGI. Until you see comments, reviews, etc about things which it cannot do, until then it's not general.

mlmonkey 1mo ago

As someone who spent countless nights tweaking Edge Detectors (looking at you, Canny), morphology operators, etc., building models to recognize 10 handwritten digits, let me tell you: the current set of LLMs (even the smaller ones) seem like magic. I had never imagined a computer would do such things in my lifetime.

cute_boi 1mo ago
Exactly people can say whatever they want, but current level of LLM is AGI level to me. It is already on par with senior programmer if the instruction/prompt is right. Once we have 1000 tps, i am sure robots etc.. will also start working like magic.
- firecall 1mo ago
  >It is already on par with senior programmer if the instruction/prompt is right. It's magical to me as well, but I don't feel like it's AGI. Because in my experience a Senior Programmer does not need the right prompts to deliver the right outcome! :-)
- throwaway63467 1mo ago
  I don’t know, I am writing a modest 30 page paper with Fable and even after rounds and rounds of feedback and improvements there are so many things that are just plain wrong or weirdly out of place or just stupidly written that Fable 5.1 doesn’t seem to have any awareness of by itself that I don’t think it’s AGI, I think a human researcher can easily outclass it in writing and problem understanding. It definitely has super human capabilities but it lacks awareness or self reflection in my opinion. For example it should be easy to tell it to not write a paper in the style of a clickbait SEO article or use all of its stupid hallmark AI writing patterns “it’s A, not B!” And a smart human that would be told that would be easily able to comply with that but the model needs to be told in a very detailed way and it seems to lack even basic capabilities to reflect on this, when explicitly given a sentence it will be able to rewrite it but otherwise it’s mostly blind to it. That’s to me a hallmark of it being overtrained on the specific tasks or problems so it appears very smart but once you go off script it still shows that it’s not a “real” mind. Of course it’s amazing and has super human capabilities in many areas but if you honestly think it’s better than Einstein like some people suggest why can’t it write a simple “good” academic paper even after giving it specific examples and instructions. Maybe that’s what makes these things dangerous, they have super human capabilities in some areas but apparently lack self awareness, taste and meta reflection abilities. The only reason people aren’t afraid more is that they don’t act in the physical world yet, imagine giving it a body, superhuman strength and letting it care for your child when it has a strong “urge” to comply with your exact request and little to no self awareness and human basic instincts.

dexterlagan 1mo ago

I'm still here, nearly 50 years and counting. If you had asked me what I imagined AGI would look like back in the 90's, I would have told you "A system that can do everything we can: see, hear, think, do.". If you had shown me GPT-6 back then, I would have said "It looks like a really powerful program, but that's not really what I had in mind.". That's AI, but it's not quite general.

nprateem 1mo ago
And then you'd ask it about an area you're knowledgeable in and realise it routinely makes stupid mistakes. Or you'd ask it to add a new page to your website and shout at it to use your existing brand colours instead of inventing some and realise it's not AGI at all...
- ChadNauseam 1mo ago
  > And then you'd ask it about an area you're knowledgeable in and realise it routinely makes stupid mistakes. This honestly doesn’t happen to me much anymore. In what areas do you find LLMs routinely make stupid mistakes?
  - Paracompact 1mo ago
    Origami design will be my personal test bed for the coming years. It's objectively very difficult and technical, it's spatiovisual, it's artistic, learning resources for it are sparse and most just learn by the FAFO method, current AI sucks terribly at it, and it's not likely to ever be specifically targeted by benchmaxxers.
  - sdwr 1mo ago
    It's really bad at game design
  - hgoel 29d ago
    Scientifically useful physics simulations. Every model absolutely sucks at them. Or, as someone else points out in another thread here, academic writing. It's one of the things newer models seem to have actually gotten worse at. Even when you give them detailed instructions on how to write and what to avoid, the "load-bearing", "A but not B" and journal-like writing make it in anyway, with the supposed AGI having no ability to reflect on how blatantly unacademic (and often unreadable) its writing is.