4 ms·

> AGI is just an unbelievably high bar. Technically it is an impossible bar as it, like AI, is a forever moving target. When chess was still considered AI, the

> AGI is just an unbelievably high bar. Technically it is an impossible bar as it, like AI, is a forever moving target. When chess was still considered AI, the Turing Test was considered the bar for AGI. Now passing the Turing Test is considered AI and chess is basic computing. Soon GPT and the like will just be basic computing and the AGI bar you can image now will become the next AI, and AGI whatever next forward-looking goal there is at that point. Lather, rinse, repeat.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> the Turing Test was considered the bar for AGI By some measures, PARRY[0] passed this test in 1972. It's a bad test for general intelligence, although I'm not convinced it was meant to be that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARRY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARRY
- spwa4 2y ago
  One way to look at it is that we've already passed the point where humans can't reliably pass the most famous AGI test ... Ironically the Turing test. After all, the only way for an algorithm to pass it, is for a human to fail that same test. The Turing test is now considered too easy to be a real test of AI. In other words, these days we think that an algorithm that can't beat a human at "being human" is pretty bad.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > In other words, these days we think that an algorithm that can't beat a human at "being human" is pretty bad. No, that's a bad summary. The Turing test is not a great test of being human.
    - spwa4 2y ago
      I think it's the perfect way to answer what it is to be human. It's reversing the question. Moving the question from some abstract weird philosophical or absurd religious argument into a concrete test. It defines what an answer to "can you create a human?" must be. Can an algorithm convince a panel of humans that it is an (to the panel unknown) human, given text communication and 30 minutes? For me, that's the definition of 30 minutes of being human. And yes, it illustrates why being human for 60 minutes, never mind a year, is a more difficult problem than 30 minutes. But it's the same a real human would perform. Would there be extra value in dropping these requirements? Dropping the text-only requirement, do it for a week or two, and maybe even imitate a human known to the panel? Yes, absolutely.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        I don't think concreteness is sufficient for a bad test. A coin flip would be a much simpler concrete test - you are human for the next five minutes if it comes up heads. For me, that's the definition of 5 minutes of being a human. The problem is "for me" is no less (and probably a lot more) absurd/weird than the philosophy or religion you dismiss. No one I know of (until now) thinks the Turing Test is about "being human". Rather, it's about whether machines can think. Or imitate thought - hence the name, the Imitation Game. And it just shows the limitation of the time - how could Alan Turing predict the incredible advances in data collection and parallel processing that would allow for giant statistical models that can imitate the output of thinking, rather than the thinking itself?
        spwa4 2y ago
        The difference is that the Turing test is both relevant and actionable. It shows what an engineer must get a gizmo to do to be human (with all the caveats). And then there's human thinking, like everyone else, EXCEPT Alan Turing, you don't discuss the actual thinking process. There's just this magical thing "to think" that humans do. BUT is human thinking really magical? There's a few basic tests that you can do with yourself. Pick a balcony, high up. Would you die if you jumped off that balcony? Answer: yes. Clearly thinking is not based on with trial and error. Next: Would you die if I make you hold a 1kg block of 10% pure uranium for an hour? Most people will answer yes. The real answer is no. This won't affect you to any significant extent (sunbathing for 1hr is far worse), and there's people who live their whole lives on soil that gives off more radiation than that (there's such places in the DRC and in Iran, both have villages on top of that soil). Or more dramatically: would you die if you jumped into the cooling pool of a nuclear reaction currently generating 3 Gigawatts of power? People always answer yes. The answer is: if you don't come within 10cm of the actual fuel rods you're actually safer in the cooling water than outside of the reactor. It is VERY safe. In fact, some inspections are done by divers. Clearly thinking is neither rational, or at the very least, it's not working from first principles (because water radiation dampening for both gamma rays AND neutrons is enormous) Can you teach people "wrong" reactions, "wrong" thinking based on feeding them bad data? Yes, in fact I feel like this is often on display. You will find that human thinking IS imitation + extrapolation. Humans (and most animals for that matter) fundamentally work like that 99.99% of the time. You can keep going like this and you will come to a conclusion that completely destroys your argument: your brain "thinks" ... based on previous data it's collected, on parallel processing and your brain IS a giant statistical model (read Bishop's book). Why would your reasoning apply to the algorithmic way of doing this but not to the "wetware" way of doing it?

robertlagrant 2y ago

> the Turing Test was considered the bar for AGI By some measures, PARRY[0] passed this test in 1972. It's a bad test for general intelligence, although I'm not convinced it was meant to be that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARRY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARRY

spwa4 2y ago
One way to look at it is that we've already passed the point where humans can't reliably pass the most famous AGI test ... Ironically the Turing test. After all, the only way for an algorithm to pass it, is for a human to fail that same test. The Turing test is now considered too easy to be a real test of AI. In other words, these days we think that an algorithm that can't beat a human at "being human" is pretty bad.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > In other words, these days we think that an algorithm that can't beat a human at "being human" is pretty bad. No, that's a bad summary. The Turing test is not a great test of being human.
  - spwa4 2y ago
    I think it's the perfect way to answer what it is to be human. It's reversing the question. Moving the question from some abstract weird philosophical or absurd religious argument into a concrete test. It defines what an answer to "can you create a human?" must be. Can an algorithm convince a panel of humans that it is an (to the panel unknown) human, given text communication and 30 minutes? For me, that's the definition of 30 minutes of being human. And yes, it illustrates why being human for 60 minutes, never mind a year, is a more difficult problem than 30 minutes. But it's the same a real human would perform. Would there be extra value in dropping these requirements? Dropping the text-only requirement, do it for a week or two, and maybe even imitate a human known to the panel? Yes, absolutely.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      I don't think concreteness is sufficient for a bad test. A coin flip would be a much simpler concrete test - you are human for the next five minutes if it comes up heads. For me, that's the definition of 5 minutes of being a human. The problem is "for me" is no less (and probably a lot more) absurd/weird than the philosophy or religion you dismiss. No one I know of (until now) thinks the Turing Test is about "being human". Rather, it's about whether machines can think. Or imitate thought - hence the name, the Imitation Game. And it just shows the limitation of the time - how could Alan Turing predict the incredible advances in data collection and parallel processing that would allow for giant statistical models that can imitate the output of thinking, rather than the thinking itself?
      - spwa4 2y ago
        The difference is that the Turing test is both relevant and actionable. It shows what an engineer must get a gizmo to do to be human (with all the caveats). And then there's human thinking, like everyone else, EXCEPT Alan Turing, you don't discuss the actual thinking process. There's just this magical thing "to think" that humans do. BUT is human thinking really magical? There's a few basic tests that you can do with yourself. Pick a balcony, high up. Would you die if you jumped off that balcony? Answer: yes. Clearly thinking is not based on with trial and error. Next: Would you die if I make you hold a 1kg block of 10% pure uranium for an hour? Most people will answer yes. The real answer is no. This won't affect you to any significant extent (sunbathing for 1hr is far worse), and there's people who live their whole lives on soil that gives off more radiation than that (there's such places in the DRC and in Iran, both have villages on top of that soil). Or more dramatically: would you die if you jumped into the cooling pool of a nuclear reaction currently generating 3 Gigawatts of power? People always answer yes. The answer is: if you don't come within 10cm of the actual fuel rods you're actually safer in the cooling water than outside of the reactor. It is VERY safe. In fact, some inspections are done by divers. Clearly thinking is neither rational, or at the very least, it's not working from first principles (because water radiation dampening for both gamma rays AND neutrons is enormous) Can you teach people "wrong" reactions, "wrong" thinking based on feeding them bad data? Yes, in fact I feel like this is often on display. You will find that human thinking IS imitation + extrapolation. Humans (and most animals for that matter) fundamentally work like that 99.99% of the time. You can keep going like this and you will come to a conclusion that completely destroys your argument: your brain "thinks" ... based on previous data it's collected, on parallel processing and your brain IS a giant statistical model (read Bishop's book). Why would your reasoning apply to the algorithmic way of doing this but not to the "wetware" way of doing it?