6 ms·
AGI Is Here?
- crooked-v 6mo agoLet's see any of this stuff do something as simple as run a vending machine without collapsing into incoherency before calling it 'AGI'.
- fastball 6mo agoWhich part of running a vending machine do you think would be hard for a SOTA model?
- oakhan3 6mo agoThat vending machine comment is probably referring to https://www.anthropic.com/research/project-vend-1 https://www.anthropic.com/research/project-vend-1 - which is a fair point. But I think it actually supports my thesis: we either haven't defined AGI well enough, or we've met it and are now waiting for something beyond it that doesn't have a name yet - something with the common sense and situational intuition a human would have in a scenario like that. The goalposts keep moving because the definition was never solid to begin with.
- Eufrat 6mo agoNo, it is isn’t and saying it is here by using vague goalposts does not make AGI show up. I will agree we have been unable to define what it is, but we can’t even figure out why humans have consciousness right now.
- oakhan3 6mo agoI think we agree - we have arbritrary goalposts regarding AGI and they have been met. WE don't know what we consider to be "the big changing moment" and that moment is hard to define because we don't have a good definition of it when we talk about ourselves even. So the convo becomes - what is that "thing" and do we need to draw similarities between "it" and our own intelligence.
- jfeew 6mo ago[flagged]
- SpicyLemonZest 6mo agoThat seems like a pretty dangerous place to set your goalposts. Don't you think we need to see what's coming and figure out how to deal with it before widespread job destruction starts?
- PaulDavisThe1st 6mo agoWhy would it specifically be job-displacement-via-LLM's that signal AGI? Why not job-displacement-via-automated-robot? or job-displacement-via-office-technology?
- ranger_danger 6mo ago> we can’t even figure out why humans have consciousness right now. My uneducated guess is that it just means we save/remember (in a lossy way) inputs from our senses and then constantly decide what to do right now based on current and historical inputs, as well as contemplated future events. I think the rest of our body greatly influences all of that as well, for example: we know running is healthy and we should do it, but we also decide not to run if we are busy, feel tired, or are in pain etc.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6mo ago"the hard problem of consciousness" is not about "what are we conscious of", but rather: how is it possible to be conscious (i.e. experience qualia) at all?
- ipnon 6mo agoThe singularity doesn't mean that we get an AGI Day with a big announcement from The People In Charge that intelligence has been solved once and for all. It simply means that the frequency of "this changes everything" and "rumored model X at lab Y passes benchmark Z at 110% in less-than-zero-shot" style posts increases monotonically for ever.
- rl3 6mo agoThe clickbait and ensuing arguments will never end. That is our fate. Once ASI exists we'll still have people arguing whether it's actually AGI or not.
- SpicyLemonZest 6mo agoOr it will just become seen as a category error. We don't often go around talking about "artificial general strength" or "artificial super-strength", even though it's easy to build a claw arm which can exert more force in any direction than any human can.
- atulvi 6mo agoMy definition has always been making a new world changing discovery in physics or math.
- mapontosevenths 6mo agoI have never met a human that managed that, and we still let them vote!
- jfeew 6mo agoThat’s a limiting definition imo.
- readthenotes1 6mo agoSeems kinda arbitrary. More humans publish non-replicable "science" in sociology -- your bar is way too high
- karmakaze 6mo agoMine was beating the top pro at Go.
- jfeew 6mo agoWhy do people keep referencing the Turing test? Turing did not anticipate there’d be a gigantic dump of text contributed by humans online to feed off.
- mapontosevenths 6mo agoPeople mention it to remind the world that the goal posts have been repeatedly moved by critics, and always will be. A certain percentage of humans will never acknowledge that machines can be intelligent. Those people should be disqualified from the conversation for the same reason we disqualify biblical literalists from conversations about radio carbon dating.
- ranger_danger 6mo ago> A certain percentage of humans will never acknowledge that machines can be intelligent. Doesn't this assume there IS an objective, quantifiable definition of an "intelligent machine" that is agreed upon by most people? That instead sounds rather subjective to my ears.
- mapontosevenths 6mo agoEven failing a single unified definition, every reasonable person should be able to define some subjective line of their own. Some people don't even have a subjective definition though. They'll continue to deny the machines are intelligent no matter where the line is drawn. It's not worth debating those folks because to them it is a matter of faith and no amount of reason can convince the unreasonable.
- jfeew 6mo ago[flagged]
- lolz404 6mo agoCan confirm an easy way to win an argument is to remove the decenting voice. Bet that would have went great in civil right and woman sufferage.
- ripped_britches 6mo agoI’m not on either side of the argument, but one popular definition is missing which is “can automate most knowledge work”. Not that this is my definition or anything, just pointing out that this is the one people actually care about, even if the acronym doesn’t say anything about economics or social change.
- jfeew 6mo ago[flagged]
- oakhan3 6mo agoInteresting, could you explain it further - I'd like to know what that means - I thought I covered this in definition 8 - but with the very blatant asterisk in the post being - we have it and it works but it doesn't work consistently enough and with acceptable quality in long enough runs or open ended tasks - but I believe we will get closer and closer to this target with improvements in models and scaffolding.
- ripped_britches 6mo agoI agree that it seems most likely that things are going to rapidly improve as they have been. But the reality is that global unemployment levels are as of yet unaffected. This is clearly the hardest bar to meet, but it’s also the most important. If AI fully automates 5% of global jobs (or pick your number), I think it would be fair to say that this specific definition of AGI is achieved. As a SWE, I feel immensely augmented by AI. But you can’t yet fully deploy an AI to do a job end to end without any human involvement. I use like ~1b input tokens per week on codex or something like that, and while it does an insane amount of work, you have to have a skilled hand guide it. This might not be the case for long, but it’s not here yet (in that narrow definition at least).
- brg 6mo agoUsefulness is here, and has been for a while time. I have been consistent in my stance that AGI will be achieved in the demonstration of iterative, stable self improvement. This can be demonstrated in knowledge creation or skill acquisition.
- oakhan3 6mo agoI like this - calling it "usefulness" - I think that's actually something the community could get behind - AGU - where we are right now, and 2 terms for 2 milestones we have yet to reach - which could be reached in any order: 1. increases in consistency and quality to some specific measure 2. development of human-like qualities - "consciousness"? "Intuition"? And then we toss the term AGI which is overloaded and ambiguous.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6mo agoAt one point in time, "AGI" included being able to learn skills that involved manipulating the physical world. While LLMs and their ilk may contribute to this, we are still (AFAICT) far, far from this at this time.
- Petersipoi 6mo agoSince when? I've never understood AGI to require that.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6mo agoOh, like since the 80s. One canonical example has been spreading butter on toast, something most children can learn to do quite early in life, but computer-mechanical systems are still not very good at (last time I looked, anyway). Rodney Brooks used to talk about this in the 90s, although that was also a period when "embodied intelligence" was where things were at (which sometimes went as far as "you can't really be intelligent without the physical experience of a body in the world").
- karmakaze 6mo agoRepeating that we don't have a definition isn't helping anything except vapid blog posts having another thing to debate. I'll give one that I believe. It's the practical ability to use AI for most things that humans do at human levels of competence, without specifically being trained for each. There is no requirement for AGI actually think/reason beyond practical measures.
- oakhan3 6mo agoIt's evidently fueled a healthy debate here and you've tossed your opinion in the ring because of it. I think you're on to something - we need a measure of what is considered "human levels of competence" or some bar by which we say "ok this is consistent enough"
- ritcgab 6mo agoIf humans are not GI, we cannot judge what is AGI.
- OutOfHere 6mo agoAGI is not reasonable without real neural memory. LLMs don't have intrinsic memory. Do not confuse a shrub for a tree.
- oakhan3 5mo agoI made a follow up to this post - https://breaking-changes.blog/agi-is-here-part-2/ https://breaking-changes.blog/agi-is-here-part-2/
- rvz 5mo agoIt is not here.