Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by uptodatenews | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

uptodatenews

You want a computer program to be able to take a single phrase and execute decade long journies?

Who will be responsible for the outputs and side effects of such a closed loop system?

Half of those the agent fleet systems can do right now.

These are things it cant do and will not be able to do without human labor and long running human vision:

https://rcsnyder.github.io/open-frontier-curriculum/05-front...

View on HN

> You want a computer program to be able to take a single phrase and execute decade long journies?

In my opinion that is exactly the point missing from AGI: the fact that you still need to prompt it. As long as you have to ask for something, is not general.

It sounds like what you're saying is that AGI should have some sort of free will. I'm not sure why you would add that as a requirement. Could you expand?

I think they merely want something with a functioning long term memory. Something that can exhibit growth past the first 5 to 10 human-equivalent hours working on something.

Current LLMs are worse than most dementia cases, reaching "peak domain skill" pretty much immediately.

Autonomy is not the same as general intelligence. We already have all kinds of fully autonomous technologies that are nowhere close to generally intelligent. Plus, at a certain level of abstraction, human beings also need to be “prompted” to some extent by stimuli. And this is the funny thing about general intelligence as a concept: most of the definitions that come close to internal coherence rely on references to human intelligence, a concept we feel like we understand because we all live it all the time, but whose actual nature and structure is extremely slippery.

Yes everything needs an initial condition.

You could have the smartest human political operator, but if he has no context, no motivation, not much is going to happen.

I don't get it, human employees frequently need to ask for directions too?

They often act on their own, too, and get things wrong a lot. The reason it works is because of all the systems of laws and institutions we have built around humans, not so much because human minds are special.

You (as a human) don't need to prompt AI. Why do you think it is required?

>You want a computer program to be able to take a single phrase and execute decade long journies? > Who will be responsible for the outputs and side effects of such a closed loop system?

Itself. That's the point. We can do it. Until it can met that bar, it ain't AGI. That's always been the bar.

"Being a person in all of its aspects" isn't the same as "generally intelligent". The latter is at best subset of the former, and it's also easy to imagine a system that is more generally intelligent than humans, without being a person. See also discussions of the personhood of various animals who are less intelligent than average humans.

Have whatever definition you want, but I'm not moving my goalposts. They started out that way and that's where they're going to stay.

That's fine, but they've also always been objectively wrong :-)

That's also fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com