AI will do this for us, no?
Isn't this being disputed for GPT-4 [1]?
As long as people weren't ready to look at human anatomy, they could only observe symptoms and make super wild guesses.
That is what this is. Youre observing a thing in a black box with a screen, and youre reading too much into it if anything in the past is to be believed.
Show a person a cellular automaton and dont explain it to them, leave them with it in a room for a month, see what their theories are. You bet it wont be "theres three rules and a random number generator", even if thats all there is.
For AGI, I would expect it to be teachable during the conversation. That is, to be able to form abstract models of reality and utilize them on the fly. Repeatably, reliably. Like a human with a pencil and a piece of paper can.
We already have models that can be shown multiple pictures of ducks, learn what the essential characteristics of a duck are and identify novel pictures of ducks.
So the AI has been taught. Has formed an abstract model of a duck and can reliably identify ducks.
When does that become AGI? It can't purely be writing proofs because that's niche even for humans.
Further what is intelligence? A professor of mathematics may be able to rattle off a proof. A 3 year old probably not. The 3 year old has amazing learning potential though. We accept that both the professor and the 3 year old display intelligence, but we dont seem to apply the same rules to AI.
Can a part of the human brain be intelligent? Are humans missing a part of their brain, such as through brain damage, intelligent? Such humans may not be as fully capable as humans with an uninjured brain, but (depending on the extent of the damage) we would still consider them intelligent and conscious.
We may think of current AI's like that: as partially functional intelligences.
But in a way they are more, because some of their functions exceed human capacity.
So they are really something new: in some ways less than humans, in some ways more.
Our conception of 'intelligence' is based on us rather than some objective metric.
There's absolutely no reason for an intelligence to be anything like us. We are flawed in a great many respects. We'll parrot things we have no reason to believe in etc, etc,etc.
Im not even sure there's a distinction between intelligence and emergent behaviour. Did we evolve to speak and write complex language or is that emergent behaviour?
sounds very much like it depends on the definition and the vendor themselve agrees that the current modeling options might not go much further...
https://twitter.com/cHHillee/status/1635790330854526981
https://towardsdatascience.com/the-decontaminated-evaluation...
https://aisnakeoil.substack.com/p/gpt-4-and-professional-ben...
I agree with the bible on this. There nothing "new", all humans do is "working on existing knowledge".
"There will be things that people will look at and say: 'they are new!', but these were here before us. Since forever."
So, IMO the author did realize that there will be "new" things, the premise is that these things are already part of our world, and the process and mechanism of discovery is repeated. In the human perception (and LLM's ?) there is only "rehashed" knowledge in a way, nothing is really new.
I don’t see how “general purpose computers” have always been here before us — many things can compute (one proper, but not too useful definition of a computer is something that represents a computable function by upon giving it an input in a specific format, it will give an output that can be interpreted as a result. E.g. a sundial is a computer), and none of the primitives are unique (logical gates can be made from many things), but their unique composition into a programmable computer is a novel invention.
It's not impossible they may have known things that we don't.
Ultimately existing AIs can only help you with stuff that’s publicly documented, preferably documented multiple times. Lots of the world is either undocumented, or the documentation only exists in private repositories. Even AI can’t know what it doesn’t know.
i can add X + Y for any values of X and Y. not because i have a gigantic table in my head, but because i know the rules of adding 2 numbers. AI is to some extent doing the same.
the fact that it does increasingly weird unhuman things to me indicates it is infact intelligence. it isnt just parroting the answers for itself. it is using its flawed understanding to attempt to reach an answer. humans are also flawed and come out with stupid answers, but we are used to that and can understand it.
Intelligence = ability to solve novel problems. Requires out-of-the-box thinking. ChatGPT cannot learn and solve problems it has never encountered before, thus it is not intelligent. Also, training != learning.
Intelligence is knowing the rules of addition to apply it to 2 numbers you've never been shown how to add.
I can memorise 1+1. I've never been shown the answer to 47459592271638494 + 3745802297337747488. That for me is a novel problem that would need to be solved.
So the fact that I have knowledge of mathematics and can apply it shows I have intelligence.
Out of the box thinking isn't a prerequisite of intelligence. It's a special case that humans are good at and computers aren't.
If a mouse bumbles around a maze, eventually finds the cheese, and from then on goes straight to the cheese, that would be a sign of intelligence. If a robot does the same, why is that any less intelligent?
T add(T a, T b) {
return a + b;
}
The thing is this is basically instinct. At the transistor level a computer knows how to add two numbers together. But then again any kind of AI is going to come down to binary digits so unless, definitionally, a computer can never be intelligent then we have to allow that your example is some kind of intelligence.
A few weeks later I found the exact blog post that ChatGPT copied from, down to the blog article explaining how the exit syscall was required and was intentionally missing from the first step as a pedagogical exercise. But of course ChatGPT won't know that.
If you know assembler, it's much easier and safer writing it yourself. If you don't don't assembler, you're doing stupid and dangerous things and should immediately stop.