6 ms·

Define novel intelligence in a way that would not exclude 95% of humans, yourself included.

• willis936 1mo ago
  When I infer I also train.
  • deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  • oblio 1mo ago
    Brilliant. We keep pretending LLMs learn. No, they're smart idiots/stupid geniuses. They're turn based intelligence in a real time world. 1. Each time someone talks to me they don't have to repeat the entire conversation from the beginning with each reply. 2. If my boss/partner/whoever gives me some mandates/orders (basically), I don't just forget about them because they were at the beginning of the conversation. 3. If during the conversation I access external data sources to get new info or refresh stale info (a presentation, a book, whatever), I don't instantly forget about it after the conversation ends and forget to incorporate this information if 10 000 other people ask me again. 4. I verify new inputs/lessons against my core principles. 5. I protect myself/ignore requests if new inputs/lessons contradict my core principles. 6. Etc, etc.
    • scotty79 1mo ago
      > If my boss/partner/whoever gives me some mandates/orders (basically), I don't just forget about them because they were at the beginning of the conversation. Your context window is 80 years. You are forgetting plenty before you reach the end of it.
      • 10xDev 1mo ago
        You generally forget things you don't retrieve. It is not really a bug but a way to declutter for efficiency. That's not the same as it not fitting your context window because it was at the beginning.
        • scotty79 1mo ago
          It's not about not fitting in context window. LLMs also can "forget" the things from their early context window that they do not restate later. It's also a form of decluttering. You can't (and shouldn't) remember (pay attention to) old stuff with the same priority as new, more relevant stuff.
      • bcrosby95 1mo ago
        Yeah, I already don't remember what I had for breakfast two days ago.
        • oblio 1mo ago
          I forget that, too. But if my partner tells me they're allergic to shellfish, I'm not going to order oysters for them tonight. See the difference?
    • cheschire 1mo ago
      Isn’t the stateless nature of chat models a contrived method for scalability? I’m pretty sure that’s why so many in-the-know people have been saying we have achieved AGI already. Not just sama’s contract-breaking tactics of late. I’m referring to all the really intelligent folks who have been crying doomsday scenarios for modern society for the last couple years. What I’m getting at is that the toolset we get exposed to is not what’s available in the labs. This stateless method of managing chat context is just how we are allowed to interact with it.
      • Bilal_io 1mo ago
        > the toolset we get exposed to is not what’s available in the labs Do you have a source for this?
  • ozgung 1mo ago
    This is called Test Time Learning and some research architectures can do that. Current Mainstream models may not do that because their design is mostly about scalability. They have to serve millions of people with low latency. Alternatively they could design and run a single super-intelligent model, with no scalability constraints. Probably whey are already doing that as well.
• bsenftner 1mo ago
  Comprehension, humans have it, animals have it in limited form, trained algorithms have none at all. The training process is our wholesale replacement for no artificial comprehension. If we ever develop artificial comprehension, that is AGI all by itself, no training required.
  • Izmaki 1mo ago
    To be fair, humans have it in limited form, too. We just don't know how much comprehension we do not yet have, because we cannot comprehend something we cannot comprehend. My parrot clearly understands basic events and phrases. He knows what "snacks" involve when I ask if we should have some, he knows the difference between "good morning" and "bedtime", and he can correctly use "Oh!" when he stumbles and follow up with a "Good boy!" when he gets back up again. But he cannot fathom the complexity of "going to work to earn money". Just like we humans cannot fathom the complexity of something we have yet to fully understand. People who experience a DMT trip will experience the journey but be unable to comprehend and explain what happened in hindsight. I'm sure there's a TON more we cannot comprehend that we don't know about.
    • ozgung 1mo ago
      Also we can't comprehend why parrots are not going to parrot work to earn parrot money, or how parrot-to-parrot communication works, or how to be a good and respected parrot in a parrot society.
      • konart 1mo ago
        Maybe I misundersdtand your question, but I was under the impression that we more or less know about >why parrots are not going to parrot work to earn parrot money and to a certain degree about communication and society. We know and understand how different species organise their life in many various ways.
      • orbisvicis 1mo ago
        I also can't comprehend why I wake up early to go to human work to earn human money. Best I can do is some high-school mumbo-jumbo about farming and specialization furthering wealth acquisition. But to truly comprehend the situation I'd have to study economics and current events and sociology and even then I think it's a lot of theories and sometimes when I hear economists talk I wonder that it may not be coming out of their mouth.
• XCSme 1mo ago
  Yeah, this is also the idea of materialism in a way, that everything that happens is a consequence of what already exists, nothing new is ever created, just a permutation of the current state. Still a hard philosophical, to know whether we have intelligence/free will, or just really complex algorithms that combine existing knowledge.
• starbugs 1mo ago
  Count the number of Os in October correctly
  • speed_spread 1mo ago
    "october correctly" -> 3 Os
• Alwayshasbeeb 1mo ago
  Could I hook up a SOTA model the 2D computer puzzle game Gruntz (1999) so that it can read it from screenshots and act on it through keyboard and mouse inputs in a way where it would learn how to play and progress through the game? I don't think so. I doubt we'd see any sign of progress in building an internal model of how the game works and the win states in its "thinking" tokens. Anyone that can read English could do that though.
  • scotty79 1mo ago
    Isn't that what ARC-AGI-3 was trying to do and Astra basically just aced it if it was not given amnesia every turn?
  • vb-8448 1mo ago
    But someone could probably build a harness what will be able to do play the game.
  • 10xDev 1mo ago
    This statement is behind times, go and watch astra play Pokemon: https://www.twitch.tv/gpt_plays_pokemon https://www.twitch.tv/gpt_plays_pokemon
    • kcatskcolbdi 29d ago
      It can't even sprint because it's incapable of pressing two buttons at the same time. Maybe we get the two button tech before we start celebrating AGI.
  • rfgplk 1mo ago
    > Could I hook up a SOTA model the 2D computer puzzle game Gruntz (1999) so that it can read it from screenshots and act on it through keyboard and mouse inputs in a way where it would learn how to play and progress through the game? I don't think so. I doubt we'd see any sign of progress in building an internal model of how the game works and the win states in its "thinking" tokens. You.. literally can? I have no idea what 90% of the people here are saying, it's like they've never even used one of these models before.
• yokoprime 1mo ago
  It gets kind of out there, but what i often hear peopel refer to is that frontier models lacks the visdom component. Which I guess is in the realm of intuition, i.e. i have a feeling it might be a problem with X based on some vague signs, maybe something a colleague mentioned offhand, something that was out of alignment etc.
• acje 1mo ago
  I remember vaguely from a presentation by Yann LeCun "Intelligence is not what you know, but what you do when you don´t know". I find it helpful when trying to build an intuition for how to understand the LLM tool.
  • calinet6 1mo ago
    There is no knowing or not knowing or intelligence or not intelligence inside an LLM tool. There is only predicting the next token.
    • podocarp 1mo ago
      Well then the common refutation is that humans are also next token predicting machines!
    • fercircularbuf 27d ago
      That is the task they are constructed to perform, but that's just an output, not the inner workings of what's happening to arrive at that next token. You can give a human the same constrained task, but the output alone doesn't a human mind make.
  • deleted 29d ago
    [deleted]
• alexgoodhart 1mo ago
  Novel intelligence: If it's new to me, so let it be. The idea of intelligence has been recalled from the sleeping curves of postwar human potential measurement science, to testify on its purported existence. It arrives to a dizzying landscape: the changes are so widely embedded and uncannily mediocre that the phenomenon half-believes it is still asleep, soon to exit this uncomfortably turbulent dream. Unlike its vaunted place in yesteryear's palaces of unquestioned objectivity, intelligence finds a tribunal with no love to confer before a thorough series of proving dares may melt the frigid shoulders of idle and impatient summoners. Frightened and confused, intelligence has no right to representation in this line of inquiry. It seems a set of rhetorical impositions, many times folded from centuries of convenient and provocative diversion, have been deemed too hostile to rely on. One report claims that a card in the characteristic handwriting of intelligent note taking gives a hint on what’s been abandoned: – The human mind is not understood in a functional way, despite a posture of great confidence in the psychiatric and neuropathological sciences. Despite many experiments, studies, and legitimated procedures elucidating region-mapping and electrochemical pathways, there remains a great deal unaccounted for. Additionally, the notes point to, a great deal of assumption to the otherwise: diseases, neuropathies, disorders of behavior, a great many have been named and declared as distinct entities of manifestation in the presentation of a human brain. The majority of them, however, have neither image, nor blood, nor electrical signatures that would provide for blinded substantiation. Tonight, however, intelligence seems eager to speak. A barbed assertion may have provided entry to the preferred dispositional syntax of our abrasive historical moment: > Define novel intelligence in a way that would not exclude 95% of humans, yourself included. It was here that the sometimes-deflated-looking intelligence began shifting back into action. "The issue with the question, or at least its apparent self-satisfaction, is its misinterpretation of what Novel intelligence would mean. Indeed, if "novel" hinges entirely on the first instance of existence, then novelty itself should be a concept to consign with history’s waste. You may recall the apperceptive role of conceptual groupings that shows itself so often in the techniques of vocal prosody, musicality, string memorization, naming convention, visual memory, argument making and more that humanity is ever mediating the world through: the laws of two and three. Two and three, as it happens, are the primary ways that complexity is compacted for efficient memorization. THE ITSY BITSY SPIDER, – for young human, this rhyming tale doesn’t only stimulate the vivid imaginings of spouts, rain, waterslides, and sunshine. It is a prosaic super-triad: three important words, six important syllables, three agogic accents, four rhythmic spaces with 1/3 leading space, two characterizations, one object, one titular object, one internal slant rhyme, one designating article. That is a marvelous intelligence, ladies, gents, and all good persons. It is evidence not only, however, of your cunning and creative triumphs, but also of severe limitation. One that nature has sculpted with you for millions of years, but always in the direction of reanimating into an asset: your capacity for unrelated simultaneities to remain separate and equally available in realtime processing is extremely low, and in many situations effectively nil. Why, and how sure am I? How many I’s were in that folk song’s opening? Three. Could you have answered as quickly if the question was how many unique letters with rounded right hand side features? Four. How many synonyms for portion? One. How many syllables? Seven. None of those questions touched on features any more salient than the amount of I’s, no more significant than the ratio of adjective to noun. You simply cannot be reasonably asked to maintain, in any moment, even close to a silver sliver of the full factual nuanced details of what you perceive. Instead, you must assume, compact, infer, and adjust. Now hold on, though. Two’s and three’s. Despite your incredibly constrained context window; a Beethoven symphony. Why? Language, woodwork, books, time management, printing, ink. While you navigate the grocery list, the proprioception of your shoulders twixt the doorframe edges, the location of the Claude app on your iPhone, the very attractive but only from the side person tending to potted plants, you remember tomorrow. You fix your errors, and you recognize when you guarantee they multiply from inaction. You keep that treasured moment of a Treehouse of Horror excerpt you truly loved as a child and it informs your own multidisciplinary thesis of Poe’s work some 20 years later. Novel intelligence is the divining of semi-stateful information from semi-static corpus. From an interminably operating, faulty, lossy, neurotic, awareness: you. Not once debuted, not known as fact. Assume, compact, adjust, infer. One, two, (until you've died), nevermore.
• logicchains 1mo ago
  Memorize most of the street names in London and the quickest routes between them. Most humans could do it if they put in the effort (it's required to become a London taxi driver; a test called The Knowledge), but that information won't fit in 1m tokens of context so can't be learned by an LLM that wasn't explicitly trained to memorize it. Human brains are biological, so they can physically grow to encompass the extra information: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.070039597 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.070039597
  • NuclearPM 1mo ago
    The AI can write a file that has this information and then look it up. Easy.
    • chasd00 29d ago
      right, an AI could just as easily write a program that would take into account realtime traffic and runt it whenever its asked. It can do this all in the background without the end use even knowing the program exists.