Luckily that doesn't exist. It's about equivalent to spinning up a Ghostbusters unit and letting it wither. You can argue that we'll be in trouble if we encounter ghosts, but on likelihood weighted basis there are much better uses of time.
https://i.imgur.com/z83umbk.jpeg
Here I change a widely known riddle to the opposite answer, and I manage to make it state them both as the answer.
When I speak colloquially, I have an underlying idea rooted in a world model to be expressed. I don't spit out 1 word at a time based on the previous words I already said.
It's very much feels to be gearing towards figuring out the gist of a search engine you may be trying to complete and put together by reading a few links.
You can stump a person with a riddle or a logic puzzle or an optical illusion.
The fact is that people who say 'it is just fancy autocomplete' are using a thought-terminating cliche, and a 'I stumped an LLM' proves nothing.
It is simply regurgitating this phrase without even considering that it is stating the exact opposite of the answer it just gave, simply because most answers to this riddle on the internet say this at the end.
> This riddle plays on the assumption that a surgeon is typically male, but in this case, the surgeon is the boy's mother.
So from this 1 failing, you can see that it is a copy and paste machine, and it doesn't even understand that it is contradicting itself.
No, it "can't be debated," it is clearly false! You said "by definition," but you used an irrational and bigoted definition of "general reasoning and logic" which conflates such things with performance on a standardized test. Humans aren't innately good at stupid logic puzzles that LLMs might get a 71st percentile in. Our brains are not actually designed to solve decontextualized riddles. That's a specialized skill which can be practiced. It's depressing enough when people claim IQ tests are actually good measures of human intelligence, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But now, by even worse reasoning, we have people saying a computer is smarter than "average humans." (MTurk average humans? Undergrads? Who cares!) The complete lack of skepticism and scientific thinking on display by many AI developers/evangelists is just plain depressing.
Let me add that a truly humiliating number of those """general reasoning""" LLM benchmarks are fucking multiple choice questions! Not all of them, but a lot. ML critics have been complaining since ~2017 (BERT) that LLMs pick up on spurious statistical correlations in benchmarks but fail badly in real-world examples that use slightly different language. Using a multiple choice test is simply dishonest, like a middle finger to scientific criticism.
SolidGoldMagikarp is the canary in the coal mine if you doubt it's Reddit
There are good arguments in the literature for why you might want to care about these risks [1, 2], and I think there's lots of room for reasonable disagreement about whether these are arguments are any good, but pretending the entire field of AI Safety is just delusional is just bad faith at this point. Especially when companies like OpenAI, Anthropic or GDM were explicitly created to build AGI, and have been talking about these risks since they were first founded.
[1]: An introductory paper I like is The Alignment Problem for a Deep Learning Perspective, from Ngo et al, https://openreview.net/forum?id=fh8EYKFKns.
[2]: A broader, less technical introduction to AI Safety that I like is Hendricks et al's An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks, https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.12001
The first three risks are completely reasonable and people should be thinking about them. No, ChatGPT should not be diagnosing patients and giving them medicine. Yes, we should be vigilant to a flood of disinformation and revenge porn made possible by AI generated content.
But when people talk about “AI safety” in this context, it’s usually in reference to the fourth category, planning for a superintelligent malicious AI that evades detection, self-replicates, etc. That’s pure science fiction at that point, and it’s not a reason to slow down development of LLMs, which yes are basically glorified chatbots and will not lead to “AGI” in this threatening sense.
If I recall correctly, when steam engines started being able to go 40-50 MPH, there were people who were concerned that human beings would not be able to survive travel at such speeds because we never had experienced them. This wasn’t completely irrational, I suppose, as there are speed-induced G forces that are fatal, and they had no way of knowing the threshold back then. But once it was clear that steam locomotives weren’t in any danger of putting us over that threshold, incessant worry about locomotive-induced speeds death was kooky. “Locomotive safety” involving derailment mitigation, track crossing markings, etc. - still legitimate. But if “locomotive safety” was associated with people making claims like “we’re headed for a mass casualty event when the first locomotive hits 60 mph,” then “locomotive safety” would be marginalized.
It doesn’t help that the public faces of “AI safety” include autodidactic pseudointellectuals, clearly mentally unwell people, and philosophers too deep in their own “taken to its logical conclusion…” thought experiments.