3 ms·

I'm not. AGI is almost necessarily closer to ASI than it is to human intelligence by definition. it's become pretty obvious that even what seems like irrelevant

by paimapi 18d ago

I'm not. AGI is almost necessarily closer to ASI than it is to human intelligence by definition. it's become pretty obvious that even what seems like irrelevant domain knowledge has utility applied to other domains - that's why we're pursuing general-use models presumably, an 'AGI' that is generally as good as a really good human at every task under-the-sun will already be much better than most humans at the task because it can incorporate cross-domain knowledge and apply it in a reasonable fashion. it's like the parable of Newton and the apple - the domain knowledge that an apple falls according to certain rules observed through historic experience igniting the creative spark that led to universal gravitation

BobbyJo 18d ago
> presumably, an 'AGI' that is generally as good as a really good human at every task under-the-sun will already be much better than most humans at the task because it can incorporate cross-domain knowledge and apply it in a reasonable fashion. I disagree with this definition of AGI, and I disagree that chess skills significantly benefit from generalizing non-chess knowledge, outside of computing moves probabilistically. AGI has historically been defined as human level or better, with generality to new domains. I think blurring it with ASI makes the terminology confusing to use. Chess is learned rules and the ability to apply those rules. Strategy as a whole is applying a set of rules to circumstances, that's how it is taught: "here are examples of circumstances and actions, try to pattern match to future circumstance and apply commensurate action." If you make the point that chess is a large part of the training data, or that LLMs are unable to learn chess well, I'll accept that as refuting that LLMs are AGI, but these other points I disagree with.

3 ms·

I'm not. AGI is almost necessarily closer to ASI than it is to human intelligence by definition. it's become pretty obvious that even what seems like irrelevant

by paimapi 18d ago

BobbyJo 18d ago
> presumably, an 'AGI' that is generally as good as a really good human at every task under-the-sun will already be much better than most humans at the task because it can incorporate cross-domain knowledge and apply it in a reasonable fashion. I disagree with this definition of AGI, and I disagree that chess skills significantly benefit from generalizing non-chess knowledge, outside of computing moves probabilistically. AGI has historically been defined as human level or better, with generality to new domains. I think blurring it with ASI makes the terminology confusing to use. Chess is learned rules and the ability to apply those rules. Strategy as a whole is applying a set of rules to circumstances, that's how it is taught: "here are examples of circumstances and actions, try to pattern match to future circumstance and apply commensurate action." If you make the point that chess is a large part of the training data, or that LLMs are unable to learn chess well, I'll accept that as refuting that LLMs are AGI, but these other points I disagree with.