5 ms·
IMO a chatbot is sufficient to demonstrate AGI. I think the chinese room problem is as good as anything. Of course, there isn't much money in teaching a bot th
by SnazzyJeff 3y ago
IMO a chatbot is sufficient to demonstrate AGI. I think the chinese room problem is as good as anything.
Of course, there isn't much money in teaching a bot that only knows english chinese.
EDIT, Wikipedia page for context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
- CuriouslyC 3y agoPeople like to shit on the Turing test, but if you step back from the subjective judgement angle, and instead imagine that the person performing the Turing test is a scientist trying to collect evidence that the agent that it is communicating with is _NOT_ intelligent/human, it is actually still very relevant. Tools like statistical analysis of output and responses to jailbreak prompts and recursive/self referential prompts designed to confuse machines and generate emotional responses from humans could be used to generate probability of human/not human in a much more rigorous way.
- skybrian 3y agoThe actual Turing Test is a party game like Werewolf. If the humans are skilled then they should be able to authenticate by picking a subject that the AI can’t compete on. This would be a very difficult game to build a computer opponent for and nobody really tries.
- krisoft 3y ago> picking a subject that the AI can’t compete on Isn’t that the point? If there are no more such subjects then the AI reached humans level cognition.
- skybrian 3y agoYes, but people underestimate what that involves. Serious players would study previous games for weaknesses, looking for subject areas that include unpublished knowledge that isn’t in the training set. Casual talk about “passing the Turing Test” sets a much lower bar.
- SnazzyJeff 3y ago[dead]
- SnazzyJeff 3y ago[dead]
- kylebenzle 3y agoTry, "ChatGPT, what do you think about this song"... LLMs do not constitute "AI" let alone the more rigorous AGI. They are a GREAT statistical parlor trick for people that don't understand statistics though.
- fragmede 3y agoYou're going to have to spell it out for me. I asked ChatGPT 4 about a random song and it gave me a decent description. https://chat.openai.com/share/71d438d7-d1f5-4f0f-9b63-8b5dd6b73f05 https://chat.openai.com/share/71d438d7-d1f5-4f0f-9b63-8b5dd6...
- jpnc 3y agoGiving a description of a song is not the same as saying what you think about it.
- krisoft 3y agoSo? Do you think we can’t make an LLM which picks a favourite song and writes about it with the gusto a person does? What is this example supposed to illustrate?
- yladiz 3y agoMaybe, but 1. the point isn’t to describe, but to explain an abstract and potentially novel idea (thought) on the song, and 2. we can’t train this kind of thing in a generic way right now.
- jpnc 3y agoWe clearly can, but not with gusto. LLM can't feel gusto about anything. If the point is that it doesn't matter as long as a person reading it is convinced there is gusto, then my point is that the 'opinion' of such a thing is irrelevant.
- 3y ago
- ActorNightly 3y agoWe can probably all agree than an AGI should be able to form questions, or more generally seek out information that it needs to figure out the answer in some form and way. Not only are there no LLMs in existence today can do this without explicit action mapping, but the mechanism for storing that piece of information would rely on doing a large number of training runs for transfer learning to retain that information, and we humans don't actually work like that.
- adrianN 3y ago> we humans don't actually work like that That is probably not a good criterion to decide whether something is intelligent or not.