undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmingus881y ago0 comments

It was not that long ago that solving a maze was thought of as AI. Or a bot in a video game adapting to your play style was AI.

Today, LLMs being trained to output text, images and video equal to or better than any human is now what we consider to be AI.

There is a semantic game we play to move the goalposts at every new tick of these technologies so that humans are still on top.

Maybe the next big trick is to define AGI as having a system that was not trained on the entire corpus of human output available on the internet, and train it with nothing. Can an AI be “born” with no model like a baby and learn to speak, walk, function in society without being primed for success with a state of the art model? Could you drop this AI into any human society, regardless of culture, and have it seamlessly integrate?

What precisely we consider “cognition” feels like a philosophical debate, one where we have no single true answer. And doesn’t really matter?

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

SpicyLemonZest1y ago

"AGI" has always referred to something a lot closer to your "next big trick" than an LLM. An AGI is a program that can slot into anywhere a human fits and do as well as a human would; GPT-4 or Claude can't do that.

I do think it's true that anyone a decade ago would have predicted their capabilities are impossible without AGI, which suggests that the entire conceptual framework is less useful than we thought. The eventual debate about whether we've "reached AGI" will probably have a lot more to do with the contract between OpenAI and Microsoft than any real paradigm shift in capabilities.

fdsjgfklsfd1y ago

> It was not that long ago that solving a maze was thought of as AI. Or a bot in a video game adapting to your play style was AI.

That is AI. AI ≠ AGI.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse