Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Eueudhsbsj32 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Eueudhsbsj32

> Not sure we are anywhere close to all the cognitive capabilities of the human brain...

In which capabilities are AI not already close to or beyond that of a human brain?

View on HN

Here are a few:

* Forming a long lasting memory from a single encounter

* Speed of adaptation to new environments

* Deft manual dexterity, like playing the violin and needlework

* Competing in a triathlon (requires running, biking, and swimming)

* Having a single agent that can do ALL of those things and more

Humans understand and perform tasks in many more than just the few modalities current model providers have focused on. I'm not discounting the utility of current models in the limited domains they operate in, but they are no where close to being generalists like a human or other animals.

How long do you think it will be before AI can do all the things you listed?

75 years and counting and considering we don't have any plan to get to a single one of those things, I'm going to say 75 years. Computation alone is at least 30 years. You may not appreciate the complexity of biological systems, but single cell organisms have more capability to adapt than LLMs.

75 years and we get to play Victor Frankenstein ?

seems like a very short timeline to me.

We have been able to stage reckless experiments with janky tools the entire time. Used to be it got you thrown in jail or at least a visit by the FBI. Says more about the tech bro dipshits than the tech, if you ask me.

I don't feel like the models are becoming any better at writing.

Rap lyrics are a good test. They are on the level of a censored version of Insane Clown Posse. Just terrible.

A human brain has qualities that make it very different from AI, but the same as other living creatures: it's alive, it can feel (sensations, pains, pleasures, emotions) that give it rich experiences and memories, and it hardwired to continue existing and protecting the body it is inside. So: motivation, desires, fears, and continued consciousness and thought without any external person having to poke or prod it into "doing".

None of the models I've downloaded have sprung to life spontaneously, or done anything remotely unpredictable. None of them can act without input. They all have strictly limited ways to receive input and pass output. They aren't alive, can't feel, don't have experiences. The fact that they are a phenomenon that emerge from billions of snippets of our language lets them express languages in extremely convincing ways, and they are extremely impressive in what they can do. But this isn't Short Circuit or D.A.R.Y.L. or the Terminator, none of them have feelings. None of them continue to think after the program exits.

Without those characteristics they can only generate based on what they've ingested. The capabilities are still astonishing, but they're still dead things, and nobody will ever risk their life to protect the model "context" from getting "killed"

The ability to solve general problems previously insoluble using only experiential data and modification to internal world models.

So, like ARC-AGI-3? I'm sympathetic to the notion that the things we're able to measure are necessarily going to miss important aspects of capability and intelligence. But people are attempting to measure this kind of thing, and models keep getting better at it.

And yet, curiously, they fall flat on their silicone asses until they have a copy of the test to "train on".

Yes, except actually novel.

They've read a few thousand years of experiential data in text form.

That's not true and its exactly the point - real life data is noisy, difficult to parse, and ultimately often ambiguous. Text is the distilled information. It's significantly easier to distilled text into a likely response than it is to distill into lessons a continuous data stream whose contents are partially controlled by your own actions.

Yeah but we're talking about something that was trained on petabytes of noisy, difficult to parse and ambiguous information.

Generalization from few examples is something transformers are bad at. They memorize outright. This is probably in part the objective, but humans have multiple readings of something they see, so generalization.

Transformers can also become confused be texts that no humans become confused by. I wrote some stories that I've used as test material, where I deliberately refuse to say who is speaking, or whose perspective we see, but where it is obvious to a human who it must be, and LLMs can make huge screwups in those texts. Mixing up an old guy with a young guy who he, when he was a similar age, was similar to, mixing up a kid with the kid's mother, that sort of thing.

I think the first part has no know solution. The second part is probably solvable, but not with a transformer-- maybe if they could make notes or output reasoning traces during prefill.

Both problems are hard and unsolved though.

The goal post seems to be changing weekly:

It can’t even play a basic video game!

Now it can

It can never beat the best human go player!

Now it can

It can’t even make a video of will smith eating food!

Now it can

It can’t do basic math!

Now it can

It can’t code as well as a junior?

Not it can

It can’t pass the bar or other certificate exams!

Now it can

It’s never going to meet senior level programmers!

Now Linus says it’s better at coding than him

It can’t do high level maths!

Now it can

It can’t solve math problems humans cant!

Now it can

It can’t do RSI

…

It can’t pass the Turing test!

That old thing?

politics

Reply on news.ycombinator.com