7 ms·

I'm still here, nearly 50 years and counting. If you had asked me what I imagined AGI would look like back in the 90's, I would have told you "A system that can

I'm still here, nearly 50 years and counting. If you had asked me what I imagined AGI would look like back in the 90's, I would have told you "A system that can do everything we can: see, hear, think, do.". If you had shown me GPT-6 back then, I would have said "It looks like a really powerful program, but that's not really what I had in mind.". That's AI, but it's not quite general.

nprateem 13d ago
And then you'd ask it about an area you're knowledgeable in and realise it routinely makes stupid mistakes. Or you'd ask it to add a new page to your website and shout at it to use your existing brand colours instead of inventing some and realise it's not AGI at all...
- ChadNauseam 13d ago
  > And then you'd ask it about an area you're knowledgeable in and realise it routinely makes stupid mistakes. This honestly doesn’t happen to me much anymore. In what areas do you find LLMs routinely make stupid mistakes?
  - sdwr 13d ago
    It's really bad at game design
  - Paracompact 13d ago
    Origami design will be my personal test bed for the coming years. It's objectively very difficult and technical, it's spatiovisual, it's artistic, learning resources for it are sparse and most just learn by the FAFO method, current AI sucks terribly at it, and it's not likely to ever be specifically targeted by benchmaxxers.
  - hgoel 13d ago
    Scientifically useful physics simulations. Every model absolutely sucks at them. Or, as someone else points out in another thread here, academic writing. It's one of the things newer models seem to have actually gotten worse at. Even when you give them detailed instructions on how to write and what to avoid, the "load-bearing", "A but not B" and journal-like writing make it in anyway, with the supposed AGI having no ability to reflect on how blatantly unacademic (and often unreadable) its writing is.
  - nprateem 12d ago
    In the last day of coding it has: - Created useless pydantic schemas with all fields Optional[Any] - Created a REST endpoint that silently mutated on GET (unsubscribed users from a mailing list) - Failed to log costs in my app so users could have bankrupted me, etc, etc. Good job I actually review its code.
xeyownt 13d ago
Anyone that is not impressed by what ChatGPT or the likes are doing now is being either dishonest or is incapable of being impressed. Only the translation and language understanding capabilities are enough to be impressed, and they are 2 year old already. Now, the AI do see, draw, speak, listen, think, work, etc. Someone from the 90's would simply not believe that the AI would be a machine but would think for sure that a human is behind. The only odd thing would be that this human would both exhibit high intelligence and stupidity at the same time.
meh2frdf 12d ago
Likewise, it's very impressive and useful, but it is obviously not AGI to those of us from that era. If anything, the fact that it is so powerful is almost a concern, because I think we are still way underestimating what these systems will be able to do when we give them more cognitive capabilities. At the moment we are something like, having had great success with propellers and have promised we will fly to the stars. People love to say 'this is the worse they will ever be', then extrapolate to conclusion that they will continue to accelerate at the same rate of progress of last few years .. it may, maybe, or we will hit a ceiling, might be a temporary one, could be 5 years or 50 years ..

nprateem 13d ago

And then you'd ask it about an area you're knowledgeable in and realise it routinely makes stupid mistakes. Or you'd ask it to add a new page to your website and shout at it to use your existing brand colours instead of inventing some and realise it's not AGI at all...

ChadNauseam 13d ago
> And then you'd ask it about an area you're knowledgeable in and realise it routinely makes stupid mistakes. This honestly doesn’t happen to me much anymore. In what areas do you find LLMs routinely make stupid mistakes?
- sdwr 13d ago
  It's really bad at game design
- Paracompact 13d ago
  Origami design will be my personal test bed for the coming years. It's objectively very difficult and technical, it's spatiovisual, it's artistic, learning resources for it are sparse and most just learn by the FAFO method, current AI sucks terribly at it, and it's not likely to ever be specifically targeted by benchmaxxers.
- hgoel 13d ago
  Scientifically useful physics simulations. Every model absolutely sucks at them. Or, as someone else points out in another thread here, academic writing. It's one of the things newer models seem to have actually gotten worse at. Even when you give them detailed instructions on how to write and what to avoid, the "load-bearing", "A but not B" and journal-like writing make it in anyway, with the supposed AGI having no ability to reflect on how blatantly unacademic (and often unreadable) its writing is.
- nprateem 12d ago
  In the last day of coding it has: - Created useless pydantic schemas with all fields Optional[Any] - Created a REST endpoint that silently mutated on GET (unsubscribed users from a mailing list) - Failed to log costs in my app so users could have bankrupted me, etc, etc. Good job I actually review its code.

xeyownt 13d ago

Anyone that is not impressed by what ChatGPT or the likes are doing now is being either dishonest or is incapable of being impressed. Only the translation and language understanding capabilities are enough to be impressed, and they are 2 year old already. Now, the AI do see, draw, speak, listen, think, work, etc. Someone from the 90's would simply not believe that the AI would be a machine but would think for sure that a human is behind. The only odd thing would be that this human would both exhibit high intelligence and stupidity at the same time.

meh2frdf 12d ago

Likewise, it's very impressive and useful, but it is obviously not AGI to those of us from that era. If anything, the fact that it is so powerful is almost a concern, because I think we are still way underestimating what these systems will be able to do when we give them more cognitive capabilities. At the moment we are something like, having had great success with propellers and have promised we will fly to the stars. People love to say 'this is the worse they will ever be', then extrapolate to conclusion that they will continue to accelerate at the same rate of progress of last few years .. it may, maybe, or we will hit a ceiling, might be a temporary one, could be 5 years or 50 years ..