As always, define "AGI". Define it well enough that we'll know whether we reach it or not.
If you can't define it, Google's AI chief can claim he was right, but that will be like, just his opinion, man.
If you can't define it, Google's AI chief can claim he was right, but that will be like, just his opinion, man.
Now there's all sorts of weird offshoots where passing the bar is tantamount to Super Intelligence.
"For some, it might mean any that is needs to do everything a normal human can. For some, non-biological life axiomatically cannot become AGI. For some, it must be "conscious" and "sentient".
For some, it might require literal omniscience and omnipotence and accepting anything as AGI means, to them, that they are being told to worship it as a God. For some, it might mean something more like an AI that is more competent than the most competent human at literally every task.
For some, acknowledging it means that we must acknowledge it has person-like rights. For some it cannot be AGI if it lies. For some it cannot be AGI if it makes any mistake. For some it cannot be AGI until it has more power than humans. These are several definitions and implications that are partially or wholly mutually conflicting but I have seen different people say that AGI is each different one of those."
He should define his version but it obviously doesn't matter what he defines it as since humans are in the business of making up new posts on the fly.
Since when? You can ask 10 people and get 10 different definitions
Does it exist physically ? Can it play tennis ? Can it smell a flower ? Can it assemble an ikea shelf ? Can it make and serve me a tea ?
Some people, even on HN, say chatgpt already is AGI for example...
Smell, play tennis, Assemble an Ikea shelf are clearly not hard bars of general intelligence.
There are millions of disabled humans who can't do any of the things you mentioned. Are they not general intelligences ?
Yes GPT-4 is AGI by the original definition.
Where can I find this "original definition" ?
I can't find any consensus about chatgpt being AGI, even openAI doesn't present it as is, nor can I find any serious paper about it being AGI either
It is a language model, a very good one, but language is the party trick of intelligence, hence people get easily tricked and anthropomorphise chatgpt to give it attributes it doesn't actually displays.
— Connor Leahy, co-founder of EleutherAI, creator of GPT-J (November 2020) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrV19SjKUss&t=175s
2. https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-...
3. Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 The especially funny thing bout this paper is that the original title in the tex source on that arxiv page is "First Contact With an AGI System"
\title{%\textbf{WORK IN PROGRESS - DO NOT SHARE} \\ %First Contact With an AGI System} \textbf{Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence:} \\ \textbf{Early experiments with GPT-4}}
4. Artificial muses: Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Have Risen to Human-Level Creativity. These guys just switched the order of two words so they wouldn't have to call it AGI lol. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12003
5. Open ai. GPTs are GPTs (General Purpose Technologies): An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models - https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10130
6. Accuracy of a Generative Artificial Intelligence Model in a Complex Diagnostic Challenge - The old switcheroo again. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/28064...
There isn't a testable definition of General Intelligence that GPT-4 would fail that a chunk of humans also wouldn't. If there are some humans that can't pass your bar of general intelligence then it is not a test of general intelligence.
Biased, like Musk when he sold the model S as fully autonomous in 2 years, back in 2012, still nowhere to be seen in 2023
> 2.
Cool opinion, both of them work for .... Google
> 3. Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence
Biased since it was done by Microsoft which is heavily invested in openai
> 4. These guys just switched the order of two words so they wouldn't have to call it AGI lol.
Generative != General
> 5. 6.
Seem unrelated
I'll believe when I see it. Chatgpt is to AGI what the wheel is to an ICBM, it might lead there at some point but we'll need a lot of breakthrough in a lot of disciplines before we can see the link.
GPT-3 was not a product of Eleuther. Eleuther doesn't sell anything. Everything it releases is open source and free. They are non profit.
>Cool opinion, both of them work for .... Google
Yes because working for one of the leading companies in the field is sure evidence to not take it seriously. Good thinking. I should trust the comment of a random person on the internet more seriously.
How is 5 unrelated ? You have Open ai literally telling you language models are general purpose.
> they could have considerable economic, social, and policy implications.
We're almost a full year into the AGI revolution and literally nothing happened, wouldn't that be a big cue ?
And yes, people who's paycheck depends on AGI existing telling me AGI exists is a red flag. Especially when I can boot up chatgpt and check for myself...
as it stands currently, nobody can provide a testable definition of general intelligence that GPT-4 fails that a chunk of humans also doesn't.
Think about that. anyone, including you who says GPT isn't agi is working off a definition that if testable, not all humans would be able to pass. That is far more important to me than any "consensus".
The OP i was replying to made it seem like nobody out there was of the opinion that we've already achieved agi and i was replying to counter that.
The very fact of continued debates over definitions to act as criteria is all the signal we need to know that we aren't there yet.
What does being an Artificial General Intelligence have anything to do with any of that ?
This is the point I'm making. You're hiding behind vague musings.
ENIAC as the first general purpose computer was a declaration made years after the fact. Why do you think it's going to be any different here ?
I don't think you can have it both ways.
But Artificial and Generally Intelligent is a bar that's been passed. Take a look at all those definitions i brought up and tell me which ones have anything to do with only being generally intelligent ?