I keep seeing naysayers complain that it is not, but nobody actually articulates exactly what makes it a non-AGI in a manner that is sufficiently robust to argumentation.
I am willing to play the GPT's advocate and have this argument here provided that I do not get rate limited.
Edit:
I'd like to respond to some of the comments but I have been rate limited :')
GPT basically has two major modes of operation right now, training, which is done by openai, and output, which is what you are doing with the API and with ChatGPT. The model does not update its "brain", its parameters and weights, based on the conversation you have with it.
Even the "conversation" presented by their chat UI is a little misleading, what's happening is that the entire conversation is being replayed into the model every time you hit send. There is also a hidden input provided by openai, responsible for the "I am a large language model" stuff, anything said early in the conversation can constrain the later output, sometimes to the point of uselessness.
Both chatGPT and GPT models exhibit in-context learning, just as you do. The difference is that during your context updates modifications to your synapses occur as a consequence of your brain's activations.
Let's entertain a hypothetical scenario where I am a 5D creature, and you are (3 Space + 1 Time)D human.
I could go back to any point in your time and have any conversation that I wish with you. Each time I do that, I am effectively resetting your brain's state to that particular point in time.
The analog here is that for ChatGPT and the likes, time does not exist in the manner that it does for us, they are purely abstract in that they don't even need physical form to exist, it's a collection of ones and zeros that we store in such form because it is convenient.
You can very well store the parameters of the GPT models in any other medium capable of holding information and actually execute the model.
You can even compute gradient updates, or hook the models up to external data sources.
In the same vein, you "could" do the same for any human brain no matter how computationally prohibitive it may be.
You'd still classify the human brain as a general intelligence. Furthermore, we classify humans with long-term amnesia or inability to form new memories generally intelligent even though they only exhibit in-context learning.
I have to ask what definition(s) of intelligence we are using here. There are multiple, and GPT satisfies some to some degree but not others. Emotion and self-awareness can probably be written off entirely. Some experimenting shows that it still sucks at logic when presented with a pristine problem (something that definitely is not in its training set); and I would say this is a requirement of a general intelligence, being able to take the knowledge it has and speculatively applying that to things it has no knowledge of using induction/deduction.
> being able to take the knowledge it has and speculatively applying that to things it has no knowledge of using induction/deduction.
One could argue that its 'confidence' is an example of speculatively applying what it knows. The problem is that the inference machinery behind it is quite weak.
BTW I tried to get Chat-GPT to solve a problem chimpanzees have been observed being able to solve (using an inverted bowl to stand on in order to reach some bananas):
"I'm sorry, but it is not biologically plausible for a chimpanzee to use a bowl of water to access bananas on a tree"
How exactly do you define novel tasks and problems?
My brother has had it do his programming homework (he's a teenager), written in Greek mind you and therefore novel task to the first-degree, and it succeeded. Thus it solved a logic task [1].
I have had ChatGPT parse math I had written in LaTeX and reach a correct result, do modifications and so on.
> Further, an AGI should logically attempt to "improve" its understanding of the world during a conversation, yet chat GPT never initiates a topic or asks you anything at all (even to clarify what you mean). It also repeatedly reminds you that it is only a language model.
Anecdata: I asked Bing (GPT4) to answer a few stuff and it asked for clarification twice in a row. The fact that it repeatedly clarifies its prompt is not a limitation of the underlying model as much as it is a limitation of the interface that injects a prompt. Dan and all the other jailbreaks out there bypass that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...
Interesting, didn’t know it could do that.
Wondering if it could also follow along with the lemmas in various papers and reach reasonable conclusions.
See eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc... or better read Bostrom's book "Super Intelligence"