undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfoobarqux1y ago0 comments

> Basically nobody today thinks beating a single benchmark and nothing else will make you a General Intelligence.

People's comments, including in this very thread, seem to suggest otherwise (c.f. comments about "goal post moving"). Are you saying that a widespread belief wasn't that a chess playing computer would require AGI? Or that Go was at some point the new test for AGI? Or the Turing test?

> I'm not playing any games... "General" is a moniker for everything under the sun that are playing games with definitions.

People have a colloquial understanding of AGI whose consequence is a significant change to daily life, not the tortured technical definition that you are using. Again your definition isn't something anyone cares about (except maybe in the legal contract between OpenAI and Microsoft).

> Who are these people ? Do you have any examples at all. Genuine question

How about you? I get the impression that you think AGI was achieved some time ago. It's a bit difficult to simultaneously argue both that we achieved AGI in GPT-N and also that GPT-(N+X) is now the real breakthrough AGI while claiming that your definition of AGI is useful.

> What do you expect from 'AGI'?

I think everyone's definition of AGI includes, as a component, significant changes to the world, which probably would be something like rapid GDP growth or unemployment (though you could have either of those without AGI). The fact that you have to argue about what the word "general" technically means is proof that we don't have AGI in a sense that anyone cares about.

0 comments

famouswaffles1y ago

>People's comments, including in this very thread, seem to suggest otherwise (c.f. comments about "goal post moving").

But you don't see this kind of discussion on the narrow models/techniques that made strides on this benchmark, do you ?

>People have a colloquial understanding of AGI whose consequence is a significant change to daily life, not the tortured technical definition that you are using

And ChatGPT has represented a significant change to the daily lives of many. It's the fastest adopted software product in history. In just 2 years, it's one of the top ten most visited sites on the planet worldwide. A lot of people have had the work they do significant change since its release. This is why I ask, what is world altering ?

>How about you? I get the impression that you think AGI was achieved some time ago.

Sure

>It's a bit difficult to simultaneously argue both that we achieved AGI in GPT-N and also that GPT-(N+X) is now the real breakthrough AGI

I have never claimed GPT-N+X is the "new breakthrough AGI". As far as I'm concerned, we hit AGI sometime ago and are making strides in competence and/or enabling even more capabilities.

You can recognize ENIAC as a general purpose computer and also recognize the breakthroughs in computing since then. They're not mutually exclusive.

And personally, I'm more impressed with o3's Frontier Math score than ARC.

>I think everyone's definition of AGI includes, as a component, significant changes to the world

Sure

>which probably would be something like rapid GDP growth or unemployment

What people imagine as "significant change" is definitely not in any broad agreement.

Even in science fiction, the existence of general intelligences more competent than today's LLMs does not necessarily precursor massive unemployment or GDP growth.

And for a lot of people, the clincher stopping them from calling a machine AGI is not even any of these things. For some, that it is "sentient" or "cannot lie" is far more important than any spike of unemployment.

foobarquxOP1y ago

> But you don't see this kind of discussion on the narrow models/techniques that made strides on this benchmark, do you ?

I don't understand what you are getting at.

Ultimately there is no axiomatic definition of the term AGI. I don't think the colloquial understanding of the word is what you think it is (i.e. if you had described to people, pre-chatgpt, today's chatgpt behavior, including all the limitations and failings and the fact that there was no change in GDP, unemployment, etc), and asked if that was AGI I seriously doubt they would say yes.)

More importantly I don't think anyone would say their life was much different from a few years ago and separately would say under AGI it would be.

But the point that started all this discussion is the fact that these "evals" are not good proxies for AGI and no one is moving goal-posts even if they realize this fact only after the tests have been beaten. You can foolishly define AGI as beating ARC but the moment ARC is beaten you realize that you don't care about that definition at all. That doesn't change if you make a 10 or 100 benchmark suite.

famouswaffles1y ago

>I don't understand what you are getting at.

If such discussions only made when LLMs make strides in the benchmark then it's not just about beating the benchmark but also what kind of system is beating it.

>You can foolishly define AGI as beating ARC but the moment ARC is beaten you realize that you don't care about that definition at all.

If you change your definition of AGI the moment a test is beaten then yes, you are simply post moving.

If you care about other impacts like "Unemployment" and "GDP rising" but don't give any time or opportunity to see if the model is capable of such then you don't really care about that and are just mindlessly shifting posts.

How do such a person know o3 won't cause mass unemployment? The model hasn't even been released yet.

foobarquxOP1y ago

> If such discussions only made when LLMs make strides in the benchmark then it's not just about beating the benchmark but also what kind of system is beating it.

I still don't understand the point you are making. Nobody is arguing that discrete program search is AGI (and the same counter-arguments would apply if they did).

> If you change your definition of AGI the moment a test is beaten then yes, you are simply post moving.

I don't think anyone changes their definition, they just erroneously assume that any system that succeeds on the test must do so only because it has general intelligence (that was the argument for chess playing for example). When it turns out that you can pass the test with much narrower capabilities they recognize that it was a bad test (unfortunately they often replace the bad test with another bad test and repeat the error).

> If you care about other impacts like "Unemployment" and "GDP rising" but don't give any time or opportunity to see if the model is capable of such then you don't really care about that and are just mindlessly shifting posts.

We are talking about what models are doing now (is AGI here now) not what some imaginary research breakthroughs might accomplish. O3 is not going to materially change GDP or unemployment. (If you are confident otherwise please say how much you are willing to wager on it).

1 more reply

Jensson1y ago

> But you don't see this kind of discussion on the narrow models/techniques that made strides on this benchmark, do you ?

This model was trained to pass this test, it was trained heavily on the example questions, so it was a narrow technique.

We even have proof that it isn't AGI, since it scores horribly on ARC-AGI 2. It overfitted for this test.

famouswaffles1y ago

>This model was trained to pass this test, it was trained heavily on the example questions, so it was a narrow technique.

You are allowed to train on the train set. That's the entire point of the test.

>We even have proof that it isn't AGI, since it scores horribly on ARC-AGI 2. It overfitted for this test.

Arc 2 does not even exist yet. All we have are "early signs", not that that would be proof of anything. Whether I believe the models are generally intelligent or not doesn't depend on ARC

Jensson1y ago

> You are allowed to train on the train test. That's the entire point of the test.

Right, but by training on those test cases you are creating a narrow model. The whole point of training questions is to create narrow models, like all the models we did before.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

famouswaffles1y ago

>People's comments, including in this very thread, seem to suggest otherwise (c.f. comments about "goal post moving").

But you don't see this kind of discussion on the narrow models/techniques that made strides on this benchmark, do you ?

>People have a colloquial understanding of AGI whose consequence is a significant change to daily life, not the tortured technical definition that you are using

>How about you? I get the impression that you think AGI was achieved some time ago.

Sure

>It's a bit difficult to simultaneously argue both that we achieved AGI in GPT-N and also that GPT-(N+X) is now the real breakthrough AGI

I have never claimed GPT-N+X is the "new breakthrough AGI". As far as I'm concerned, we hit AGI sometime ago and are making strides in competence and/or enabling even more capabilities.

You can recognize ENIAC as a general purpose computer and also recognize the breakthroughs in computing since then. They're not mutually exclusive.

And personally, I'm more impressed with o3's Frontier Math score than ARC.

>I think everyone's definition of AGI includes, as a component, significant changes to the world

Sure

>which probably would be something like rapid GDP growth or unemployment

What people imagine as "significant change" is definitely not in any broad agreement.

Even in science fiction, the existence of general intelligences more competent than today's LLMs does not necessarily precursor massive unemployment or GDP growth.

foobarquxOP1y ago

> But you don't see this kind of discussion on the narrow models/techniques that made strides on this benchmark, do you ?

I don't understand what you are getting at.

More importantly I don't think anyone would say their life was much different from a few years ago and separately would say under AGI it would be.

famouswaffles1y ago

>I don't understand what you are getting at.

If such discussions only made when LLMs make strides in the benchmark then it's not just about beating the benchmark but also what kind of system is beating it.

>You can foolishly define AGI as beating ARC but the moment ARC is beaten you realize that you don't care about that definition at all.

If you change your definition of AGI the moment a test is beaten then yes, you are simply post moving.

How do such a person know o3 won't cause mass unemployment? The model hasn't even been released yet.

foobarquxOP1y ago

> If such discussions only made when LLMs make strides in the benchmark then it's not just about beating the benchmark but also what kind of system is beating it.

I still don't understand the point you are making. Nobody is arguing that discrete program search is AGI (and the same counter-arguments would apply if they did).

> If you change your definition of AGI the moment a test is beaten then yes, you are simply post moving.

1 more reply

Jensson1y ago

> But you don't see this kind of discussion on the narrow models/techniques that made strides on this benchmark, do you ?

This model was trained to pass this test, it was trained heavily on the example questions, so it was a narrow technique.

We even have proof that it isn't AGI, since it scores horribly on ARC-AGI 2. It overfitted for this test.

famouswaffles1y ago

>This model was trained to pass this test, it was trained heavily on the example questions, so it was a narrow technique.

You are allowed to train on the train set. That's the entire point of the test.

>We even have proof that it isn't AGI, since it scores horribly on ARC-AGI 2. It overfitted for this test.

Arc 2 does not even exist yet. All we have are "early signs", not that that would be proof of anything. Whether I believe the models are generally intelligent or not doesn't depend on ARC

Jensson1y ago

> You are allowed to train on the train test. That's the entire point of the test.

Right, but by training on those test cases you are creating a narrow model. The whole point of training questions is to create narrow models, like all the models we did before.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse