When people imagined AI/AGI, they imagined something that can reason like we can, except at the speed of a computer, which we always envisioned would lead to the singularity. In a short period of time, AI would be so far ahead of us and our existing ideas, that the world would become unrecognizable.
That's not what's happening here, and it's worth remembering: A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today, despite not having language or technology, or any knowledge.
In Carolyn Porco's words: "These beings, with soaring imagination, eventually flung themselves and their machines into interplanetary space."
When you think of it that way, it should be obvious that LLMs are not AGI. And that's OK! They're a remarkable piece of technology anyway! It turns out that LLMs are actually good enough for a lot of use cases that would otherwise have required human intelligence.
And I echo ArekDymalski's sentiment that it's good to have benchmarks to structure the discussions around the "intelligence level" of LLMs. That _is_ useful, and the more progress we make, the better. But we're not on the way to AGI.
It's interesting to me how much effort the AI companies (and bloggers) put into claiming they can do things they can't, when there's almost an unlimited list of things they actually can do.
Only because they have compressed and encoded the entire sum of human knowledge at their disposal. There are models for everything in there, but they can only do what has been done before.
What's more amazing to me is the average human, only able to hold a relatively small body on knowledge in their mind, can generate things that are completely novel.
People assume training on past data means no novelty, but novelty comes from recombination. No one has written your exact function, with your exact inputs, constraints, and edge cases, yet an LLM can generate a working version from a prompt. That’s new output. The real limitation isn’t novelty, it’s grounding.
Just because there are lots of tasks which can be accomplished without the need for anything novel doesn't mean LLMs can match a human. It just means humans spend a lot of time doing some really boring stuff.
I hear this constantly. Can you produce something novel, right here, demonstrably, that an LLM couldnt have produced? Nobody ever can, but it’s sure easy to claim.
I'm going to assume you mean this seriously, so I will answer with that in mind.
Yes, I can.
- I can build an unusual, but functional piece of furniture, not describe it, not design it. I can create a chair I can sit on it. An LLM is just an algorithm. I am a physically embodied intelligence in a physical world.
- I can write a good piece of fiction. LLMs have not demonstrated the ability to do that yet. They can write something similar, but it fails on multiple levels if you've been reading any of the most recent examples.
- I can produce a viable natural intelligence capable of doing anything human beings do (with a couple of decades of care, and training, and love). One of the perks of being a living organism, but that is an intrinsic part of what I am.
- I can have a novel thought, a feeling, based on qualia that arise from a system of hormones, physics, complex actions and inhibitors, outrageously diverse senses, memories, quirks. Few of which we've even begun to understand let alone simulate.
- And yes I can both count the 'r's in strawberry, and make you feel a reflection of the joy I feel when my granddaughter's eyes shine when she eats a fresh strawberry, and I think how close we came to losing her one night when someone put 90 rounds through the house next door, just a few feet from where her and her mother were sleeping.
So yeah, I'm sure I can create things an LLM can't.
So the only thing I am seeing here is physical or personal (I have no idea how you feel or what your emotions are. You are a black box just as an LLM is a black box.)
The only thing you mentioned is the fan fic and I would happily take the bet that an LLM could win out against a skilled person based on a blind vote.
Was an individual mind responsible for us as humanity landing on the moon? No. Could an individual mind have achieved this feat? Also no.
Put differently, we should be comparing the compressed blob of human knowledge against humanity as a collective rather than as individuals.
Of course, if my individual mind could be scaled such that it could learn and retain all of human knowledge in a few years, then sure, that would be a fair comparison.
I want to see an LLM create an entirely novel genre of music that synthesizes influences from many different other genres and then spreads that genre to other musicians. None of this insulated crap. Actual cultural spread of novel ideas.
Because most of these things are not multi-trillion-dollar ideas. "We found a way to make illustrators, copyeditors, and paralegals, and several dozen other professions, somewhat obsolete" in no way justifies the valuations of OpenAI or Nvidia.
This is literally the first time I've heard this. What is your source? I can type the exact same query three times and though the general meaning may be the same, the actual output is unique every single time. How do you explain this if it's cached?
>Because most of these things are not multi-trillion-dollar ideas.
That's right, but there's more. When you think about the cost of compute and power for these LLM companies, they have no choice. It MUST be a multi-trillion-dollar idea or it's completely uninvestable. That's the only way they can sucker more and more money into this scheme.
I don't know about OpenAI, but Nvidia's valuation seems more justifiable based on their actually known revenue and profit, and because it's publicly traded.
Though if the bubble(?) bursts and Nvidia starts selling fewer units year-over-year, that could be problematic.
This generally just keeps being the "the Emperor has no clothes" moment for all these AI bull companies.
Microsoft just replaced their native Windows Copilot application with an Electron one. Highly ironic.
Obviously the native version should run much faster and will use less memory. If Copilot (via either GPT or Claude) is so godlike at either agentic or guided coding, why didn't they just improve or rewrite the native Copilot application to be blazing fast, with all known bugs fixed?
And many of them so unexpected, given the unusual nature of their intellegence emerging from language prediction. They excel wherever you need to digest or produce massive amounts of text. They can synthesize some pretty impressive solutions from pre-existing stuff. Hell, I use it like a thesaurus to sus out words or phrases that are new or on the tip of my tounge. They have a great hold on the general corpus of information, much better than any search engine (even before the internet was cluttered with their output). It's much easier to find concrete words for what you're looking for through an indirect search via an LLM. The fact that, say, a 32GB model seemingly holds approximate knowlege of everything implies some unexplored relationship between inteligence and compression.
What they can't they do? Pretty much anything reliably or unsupervised. But then again, who can?
They also tend to fail creatively, given their synthesize existing ideas. And with things involving physical intuition. And tasks involving meta-knowlege of their tokens (like asking them how long a given word is). And they tend to yap too much for my liking (perhaps this could be fixed with an additional thinking stage to increase terseness before reporting to the user)
My current way of thinking about LLMs is "an echo of human intelligence embedded in language".
It's kind of like in those sci fi or fantasy stories where someone dies and what's left behind as a ghost in the ether or the machine isn't actually them; it's just an echo, an shallow, incomplete copy.
The hype has gotta keep going or the money will dry up. And hype can be quantified by velocity and acceleration, rather than distance. They need to keep the innovation accelerating, or the money stops. This is of course completely unreasonable, but also why the odd claims keep happening.
Why would the money dry up when we have companies willing to spend $1000/developer/month on AI tooling when they would have balked at $5/u/mo for some basic tooling 2-3 years ago?
First in some cases it is more than $1000/dev/month.
Those companies spending 1000+/developer are doing it with the same hope that at some point those $1000/month will replace the developer salary per month. Or because by doing so more investors will put more money into them.
Take away the promise of AI replacing developers and see how much a company is willing to pay for LLMs. It is not zero as there are very good cases for coding assisted by LLM or agentic engineering.
Well, for starters, they definitively passed the Turing test a few years ago. The fact that many regard them as equivalent in skill to a junior dev is also, IMO, the stuff of science fiction.
how do you market that as a product that is needed by other people?
there are already companies that advertise Ai date partners, Ai therapists and Ai friends - and that gets a lot of flame about being manipulative and harmful
I've been pushing Opus pretty hard on my personal projects. While repeatability is very hard to do, I'm seeing glimpses of Opus being well beyond human capabilities.
I'm increasingly convinced that the core mechanism of AGI is already here. We just need to figure out how to tie it together.
Generating 3000 lines of esoteric rendering code within minutes, to raster generative graphics of anything you can imagine and it just works? From natural language instructions. Seriously think about that my dude.
This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective. At some point in our past, we were something much less intelligent than we are now. Our intelligence didn't spring out of thin air. Whether or not AI can evolve is yet to be seen I think.
Sure, but then basically whatever it was, it was not "us". "Us" and our intelligence had to appear at some point. It's 100% not "anti-evolutionary" to say some years ago humans became as mentally capable as a baby born today. We just have to figure out how many years ago that was. It wasn't last decade. As far as I know most anthropologists agree it was around ~70k years ago (not 200k).
I could gather that you disagreed with GP, but I don't see a salient point in your response? You are ostensibly challenging GP on the idea that a homo sapien baby from 200,000 years ago would have been capable of modern mental feats if raised in the present day.
> This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective.
Nice, seems like you have something meaningful to add.
> At some point in our past, we were something much less intelligent than we are now.
I agree with this, but "at some point in our past"? Is that the essence of this rebuttal?
> Our intelligence didn't spring out of thin air.
Again, I could not tell what this means, nor do I see the relevance.
> Whether or not AI can evolve is yet to be seen I think.
The OP is very pointedly talking about LLMs. Is that what you mean to reference here with "AI"?
I implore you to contribute more meaningfully. Especially when leading with statements like "This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective", you ought to elaborate on them. However, your username suggests maybe you are just trolling?
If you think you are equipped to discuss the topic of evolution of general intelligence in homo, and you haven't read about GWAS and EDU PGS, then at this point you are either a naive layman, or a convinced discourse commando.
Because it is really hard and hopeless endeavor to make an objective case that the current human populations have similar PGS scores on key mental traits and diseases compared to 200k years ago.
The myth that humans remain unchanged for 200k years is forever parroted as truth.
What is the origin of this silly myth? Its come from either anatomical similarity of fossils to modern day human or a comparison to modern (5k ago) humans being conflated with 200k humans
> A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today, despite not having language or technology, or any knowledge.
Source? This does not sound possibly true to me (by any common way we might measure intelligence).
How do you arrive at the statement that a cavemen would have the same intelligence as a human today? Intelligence is surely not usually defined as the cognitive potential at birth but as the current capability. And the knowledge an average human has today through education surely factors into that.
Your attempt to commingle intelligence and knowledge is not needed to support your initial question. The original statement that a caveman 200K years ago would have the same intelligence as a modern human was blankly asserted without any supporting evidence, and so it is valid to simply question the claim. You do not need to give a counterclaim, as that is unnecessarily shifting the burden of proof.
The knowledge that everything is made out of atoms/molecules however makes it much easier to reason about your environment. And based on this knowledge you also learn algorithms, how to solve problems etc. I dont think its possible to completely separate knowledge from intelligence.
But an intelligent being could learn that, do you think they become more intelligent if you tell them things are made out of atoms? To me the answer is very simple, no they don't become more intelligent.
There’s a lot of research out there about the general flexibility of the brain to adapt to whatever stimulus you pump into it. For example taxi cab drivers have larger areas in their hippocampus dedicated to place cells relative to the general population [1]. There’s also all kinds of work studying general flexibility of the brain in response to novel stimulus like the visual cortex of blind people being dedicated to auditory processing [2 is a broad review]. I guess you could argue that the ability to be flexible is intelligence but the timescales over which a brain functionally changes is longer than a general day to day flexibility. Maybe some brains come into an initial state that’s more predisposed to the set of properties that we deem as “intelligence” but development is so stimulus dependent that I think this definition of a fixed intelligence is functionally meaningless. There are definitely differences in what you can learn as you age but anyone stating we have any causal measure of innate intelligence is claiming far more than we actually have evidence for. We have far more evidence to suggest that we can train at least the appearance and usage of “intelligence”. After all no one is born capable of formal logical reasoning and it must be taught [3,4 kind of weak citations foe this claim but there’s a lot to suggest this that I don’t feel like digging up]
Would you also say that you cannot "train" intelligence?
I would agree that generally, purely acquiring knowledge does not increase intelligence. But I would also argue that intelligence (ie your raw "processing power") can be trained, a bit like a muscle. And acquiring and processing new knowledge is one of the main ways we train that "muscle".
There's lots of examples where your definition of intelligence (intelligence == raw processing power) either doesn't make sense, or is so narrow that it becomes a meaningless concept. Let's consider feral children (ie humans growing up among animals with no human contact). Apparently they are unable or have trouble learning a human language. There's a theory that there's a critical period after which we are unable to learn certain things. Wouldn't the "ability to learn a language" be considered intelligence? Would you therefore consider a young child more intelligent than any adult?
And to answer your question, whether learning about atoms makes you more intelligent: Yes, probably. It will create some kind of connections in your brain that didn't exist before. It's a piece of knowledge that can be drawn upon for all of your thinking and it's a piece of knowledge that most humans would not figure out on their own. By basically any sensible definition of intelligence, yes it does improve your intelligence.
The claim that books know things seems suspicious to me. I consider the act of knowing to be embodied, it is something a person has learned to do and has control over.
Is that how you approach PDF files? Do you feel it in your bones that these flows of bytes are knowing?
> The claim that books know things seems suspicious to me
I didn't say the book knows things, but everyone can agree that books has knowledge in them. Hence something possessing knowledge doesn't make it intelligent.
For example, when ancient libraries were burnt those civilizations lost a lot of knowledge. Those books possessed knowledge, it isn't a hard concept to understand. Those civilizations didn't lose intelligence, the smart humans were still there, they just lost knowledge.
Would you consider taking a dump and then butchering an animal and then eating without washing your hands first, to be an issue of intelligence or knowledge?
The whole thing about washing hands comes from (some approximation of) germ theory of illness, and in practice, it actually just boils down to stories of other people practicing hygiene. So if one's answer here isn't "knowledge", it needs some serious justification.
Expanding that: can you think of things that are "intelligence" that cannot be reduced like this to knowledge (or combination of knowledge + social expectations)?
I think in some sense, separating knowledge and intelligence is as dumb a confusion of ideas as separating "code" and "data" (doesn't stop half the industry from believing them to be distinct thing). But I'm willing to agree that hardware-wise, humans today and those from 10 000 years ago, are roughly the same, so if you teleported an infant from 8000 BC to this day, they'd learn to function in our times without a problem. Adults are another thing, brains aren't CPUs, the distinction between software and hardware isn't as clear in vivo as it is in silico, due to properties of the computational medium.
Because comparing the human brain and the way it is thinking and seeing and interacting to/with the world to physical/mechanical things like CPU/SSD brings with it huge abstraction gaps, to the point of making the comparison null.
The definitions of the words are contingent on human experience, even more so than "code" are "data" where we try to be more mechanistic, and still most people make the mistake of thinking they're distinct categories (spoiler: they're not; whether something is "code" or "data" depends entirely on your perspective).
If we want to draw computing device analogies, then the brain is an FPGA that is continuously reconfiguring itself throughout its runtime.
I think the core idea is that if a baby with "caveman genetics" so to speak were to be born today, they could achieve similar intellectual results to the (average?) rest of the population.
At least that's how I interpret it.
It's even sillier than that. You can look at populations in the modern world and see there are huge differences in intelligence due to various factors such as cousin marriage and nutrition.
Ah yes, the 0.50$/h support infrastructure from the places that cannot refuse the deal. "frontier" LLMs currently cosplay a dunk with google and late alzheimer's. Surely, they speed up brute-forcing correct answer a lot by trying more likely texts. And? This overfed markov chain doesn't need supporing infrastructure — it IS supporting infastructure, for the cognitive something that is not being worked on prominently, because all resources are needed to feed the markov chain.
The silence surrounding new LLM architectures is so loud that an abomination like "claw" gets prime airtime. Meanwhile models keep being released. Maybe the next one will be the lucky draw. It was pure luck, finding out how well LLMs scale, in the first place. Why shouldn't the rest of progress be luck driven too?
Pretty much, it's just that these overfed Markov chains when given a proper harness and agentic framework are able to produce entire software projects in a fraction of the time it used to take.
Sorry, I tought you meant "support infrastructure" in a much wider sense — yeah, LLMs are frighteningly good at lockpicking tests using source code shaped inputs. It's just that they are also frighteningly good at finding insane ways to game the tests, too. I wouldn't say that LLMs are very "G" in the AI they do — present them with confusing semantics, and they fall off the self-contradiction cliff. No capability of developing theory systematically from observations.
200k years just isn't much time for significant evolutionary changes considering the human population "reset" a couple times to very very small numbers.
Reich's lab actually found evidence of meaningful genetic changes that improved intelligence over the past 10,000 years, but not so much prior to that:
Our big brains are a recent mutation and haven't been fully field tested. They seem like more of a liability than anything, they've created more existential risks for us than they've put to rest.
Yes, but also antibiotics, vaccinations, child mortality down down down, life expectancy up up up. I wouldn't trade for living even 100 years prior compared to today, or 500-200k years ago for that matter.
With everything wrong and sick with today's world, let's not take the achievements of our species for granted.
You wouldn't make that trade because you are part of the last generation (loosely speaking, a collection of generations) before it all comes crumbling down. We are living unbelievably privileged lives because we are burning all of the world's resources to the ground. In the process, we're destroying the ecosystem and driving a mass extinction event. Nothing about the way we live is sustainable long-term. We're literally consuming hundreds of millions of years worth of planet-wide resource buildup over a span of a couple of centuries. Even if we avoid the worst case scenario, humans 200 years from now will almost certainly not be able to live anywhere near as luxuriously as we do now, unless there's a culling of billions. In the actual worst case scenario, we may render the planet uninhabitable for anything we regard as intelligent life.
In that sense, we have just enough collective intelligence to be dangerous and not enough intelligence to moderate ourselves, which may very well result in an evolutionary deadend that will have caused untold damage to life on Earth.
You lost me when you started narrating the fossil doom visage.
With the current progress in solar, as well as the remaining coal, gas and uranium reserves, energy is not going to be what finishes our civilization.
While I don't think we are going to get true collapse, I think we are going to get a lot of technical progress compensating for biosocial deterioration.
The demographics, mental health and dysgenics are all real, quantified trends, and we are going to face the reality of less capable, less taxable population for the rest of this century. It's baked in at this point.
We also live in an era we can create hydrocarbon fuel DIRECTLY from the atmosphere and desalinate fresh water in unlimited supply, from power derived directly from the sun or atomics.
We also live in a time where the human population, where it is most concentrated, is declining rather than growing, so far without too disastrous consequences.
Greening of the earth has been happening since the 1980s- i.e. about a .3% coverage increase per year in recent decades.
Places that were miserable and poor, like China, have been lifted to prosperity and leading out in renewable tech.
There is much to celebrate and after the recent passing of Paul Ehrlich, we should pause and consider just how wrong pretty much every prediction he made was.
That seems both fatalistic and doomerist to me, but time will tell. I would assume germ theory would survive regardless, as would immunology, so I'd hold on to those two at least.
Doomerism is a kind of religion that goes back as far as they eye can see. What's interesting about it is that in spite of being perpetually incorrect in its myriad predictions, it continues to adapt and attract new adherents.
See also (recent only):
- Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb (Malthusian collapse)
- The Club of Rome's The Limits of Growth (resource exhaustion)
- Thomas Malthus' Population growth / famine cycle
- James Lovelock's Global warming catastrophe predictions
I am not a doomer, nor a Malthusian, merely a realist. There are a few points I could make briefly:
- Everything lasts forever, until it doesn't. Ancient Egyptian civilization lasted for thousands of years, until it didn't. Any Egyptian could point to thousands of years of their heritage and say it hasn't ended yet, therefore any prediction that it will end is clearly bad and dumb. Then it was conquered by Romans, and then by Islam, with its language, culture, and religion extinguished, extant only in monuments, artifacts and history books.
- We have nuclear weapons now. Any prediction of an imminent end of human civilization before then would be purely religious, but there is a real reason to believe things have changed. We are currently in a time of relative peace secured by burning resources for prosperity, but what happens when those resources run out and world conflict for increasingly scarce resources is renewed with greater vigor?
- Note that I did not outright predict the end of human civilization, merely noted it as a plausible worst-case scenario. If civilization continues on more-or-less as it is, in the next couple of hundred years, we will drive countless more species to extinction. We will destroy so much more of our environment with climate change, deforestation, strip mining, overfishing, pollution, etc. We will deplete water reservoirs and we will deplete oil, helium, phosphorus, copper, zinc, and various rare earth elements. Not a complete depletion, but they will become so scarce as to not be widely available or wasted for the general population's benefit. If billions of people are still alive then, which I explicitly suggested was a possibility, they will as a simple matter-of-fact live much less comfortably prosperous lives than us. It will not take a great catastrophe to result in a massive reduction in living standards, because our current living standards are inherently unsustainable.
I posted my own comment but I agree with you. Our modern society likes to claim we are somehow "more intelligent" than our predecessors/ancestors. I couldn't disagree more. We have not changed in terms of intelligence for thousands of years. This is a matter that's beyond just engineering, it's also a matter of philosophy and perspective.
> caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today, despite not having language
There is evidence to the contrary. Not having language puts your mental faculties in a significant disadvantage. Specifically, left brain athropy. See the critical period hypothesis. Perhaps you mean lacking spoken language rather than having none at all?
> A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today, despite not having language or technology, or any knowledge.
Doubt. If we would teleport cavemen babies right out of the womb to our times, I don't think they'd turn into high IQ individuals. People knowledgeable on human history / human evolution might now the correct answer.
It is known that 200k years ago human brain sizes were actually greater than today, even if this does not necessarily correlate with a lower IQ in the present, because it is more likely that the parts of the brain that have reduced may have been related with things like fine motor skills and spatial orientation, which are no longer important today for most people.
A human being has the potential for intelligence. For that to get realized, you need circumstances, you need culture aka "societal" software and the resources to suspend the grind of work in formative years and allow for the speed-running of the process of knowledge preloading before the brain gets stable.
The parents then must support this endeavor under sacrifices.
There is also a ton of chicken-egg catch22s buried in this whole thing.
If the society is not rich then no school, instead childlabour. If child-labour society is pre-industrial ineffective and thus, no riches to support and redistribute.
Also is your societies culture root-hardened. Means - on a collapse of complexity in bad times, can it recover even powering through the usual "redistribute the nuts and bolts from the bakery" sentiments rampant in bad times. Can it stay organize and organize centralizing of funds for new endeavors. Organizing a sailing ship in a medieval society, means in every village 1 person starves to death. Can your society accomplish that without riots?
Of course they were. A human from 200,000 years ago would be almost genetically identical to one from today. That's what makes us homo sapiens. 200,000 years is absolutely nothing on an evolutionary timescale with generations as long as ours and reproduction rates as low as ours.
A human is more then the hardware.
A human is hardware with cultural software.
A human is decorated with parental education.
A human is decorated with local cultural influences.
A human inherits his economic circumstances and behavior.
A modern human is a complex artifact and can not be produced everywhere.
The ability to cooperate, form institutions and build complex tools may be severely restricted even today. Of course its also restricted in the past.
A human is decorated with local cultural influences.
A human inherits his economic circumstances and behavior.
A modern human is a complex artifact and can not be produced everywhere.
The ability to cooperate, form institutions and build complex tools may be severely restricted even today. Of course its also restricted in the past.
We all come from monke, monkey from 10 million years ago would definitely be unable to even learn spoken language at a basic level. Would he even have the anatomy to produce the required sounds? I don't think so.
What about monke from 1 million years ago? 200 thousand years ago?
ChatGpt says spoken language only emerged 50k - 200k years ago and that a cavemen baby from 200k years ago could learn spoken language if brought up by modern parents.
The evolution of the human brain appears to have reached its peak long before 200k years ago.
Nowadays humans have smaller brains on average, though that is almost certainly not correlated with a lower skill in computer programming, but with lower skills in the techniques that one needed to survive as a hunter of big animals.
How could we know this? AFAIK all we can say is the volume of the brain has been relatively stable for that long, how can we say the structures of the brain have not evolved since then? It seems plausible to me anyway that humans could have co-evolved with ideas in a way.
From what I understand, in terms of genetic changes to intellectual abilities, there's not much evidence to suggest we're so much smarter that your proposed teleported baby would be noticeably stupider - at best they'd be on the tail of the bell curve, well within a normal distribution. Maybe if we teleported ten thousand babies, their bell curve would be slightly behind ours. Take a look at "wild children" for the very few examples we can find of modern humans developed without culture. Seems like above everything, our culture, society, and thus education is what makes us smart. And our incredibly high calorie food, of course.
That is exactly what civilization is about - for new generations to start not from scratch, but from some baseline their parents achieved (accumulated knowledge and culture). This allows new generations to push forward instead of retreading the same path.
it's impossible to prove the counterfactual (I guess, as I imagine we don't have enough gene information that far back). But I'd imagine that the high calorie food you can get starting with the advent of agriculture is exactly what could drive evolution in a certain direction that helps brains grow. We've had ~1000 generations since then, that should be enough for some change to happen. Our brains use up 20% of the body's energy. Do we know that this was already the case during the stone age?
The advent of agriculture did not provide better food, it was just the only solution to avoid extinction due to the lack of food.
The archaeological evidence shows that for many generations the first neolithic farmers had serious health problems in comparison with their ancestors. Therefore it is quite certain that they did not transition to agriculture willingly, but to avoid starvation.
Later, when the agriculturalists have displaced everywhere the hunter-gatherers, they did not succeed to do this because they were individually better fed or stronger or smarter, but only because there were much more of them.
The hunter-gatherers required very large territories from which to obtain enough food. For a given territory size, practicing agriculture could sustain a many times greater population, and this was its advantage.
The maximum human brain size had been reached hundreds of thousands years before the development of agriculture, and it regressed a little after that.
There is a theory, which I consider plausible, that the great increase in size of the human brain has been enabled by the fact that humans were able to extract bone marrow from bones, which provided both the high amount of calories and the long-chain fatty acids that are required for a big brain.
I've seen the bone marrow hypothesis also, which is very interesting. Afaik. evidence shows at least that there was enough specialization during neolithic era to have bone marrow cooks where the hunters delivered their bones. Something you wouldn't expect based on just school knowledge (at least back in 90s/2000s).
I see your point about agriculture at first degrading quality of food. Are you aware of evidence of brain size degrading even? Is it visible in the temple bones?
Humans, like all animals, have not stopped evolving. A random caveman from 200K years ago would have very different genetics to that of a typical HN reader and even more so of the best of the HN readers.
Around 3,200 years ago there was a notable uptick in alleles associated with intelligence.
It still seems like something is missing from all these frameworks.
I feel like an average human wouldn't pass some of these metrics yet they are "generally intelligent". On the other hand they also wouldn't pass a lot of the expert questions that AI is good at.
We're measuring something, and I think optimizing it is useful, I'd even say it is "intelligent" in some ways, but it doesn't seem "intelligent" in the same way that humans are.
If a human cares about the work, they can often outperform an LLM because they will keep at it until the work meets their standard of quality. Whereas the LLM will guess and then wait to be corrected. As a recent tweet I saw said: it’s amazing how fast the software bottleneck went from writing code, to reviewing code.
I think we’ll need to split the concept of intelligence into the capacity to accomplish a task and the capacity to conceive and prompt a task. If the former is called “intelligence” then LLMs are intelligent.
But what then do we call the latter? I think the idea of an AI that can independently accomplish great things is where people talk about “general” intelligence. But I think we need a label more specific, that covers this idea that successful humans are not just good at doing things, they originate what should be done and are not easy to dissuade.
>I think we’ll need to split the concept of intelligence into the capacity to accomplish a task and the capacity to conceive and prompt a task. If the former is called “intelligence” then LLMs are intelligent.
Huh? No. "The capacity to accomplish a task" is not intelligence. By that definition, a washing machine is intelligent.
Capacity is not binary. A washing machine can accomplish one task, so it has low capacity. An LLM can accomplish many tasks, so it has higher capacity.
You said "the capacity to accomplish a task", not "the capacity to accomplish a certain number of tasks". Those are two different definitions.
Either way, as definitions for intelligence they're very lacking. Most people would include such abilities as making connections between unrelated facts, making abstractions, understanding what is relevant and what isn't, learning. Just being able to "accomplish many tasks" doesn't cut it. You could build a really complex machine that can accomplish many different tasks and that wouldn't make it more intelligent than a washing machine, it'd just make it more complicated. Intelligence is not in how many things the intelligent thing is able to do, but in how on-the-fly adaptable it is. Something truly intelligent does not need to be purpose-built to do anything, it can learn to make do with whatever resources it's got.
On the other hand, AI being very good at everything while select humans may only be very good at some things is likely also a quality we want to retain (or, well, achieve).
> I feel like an average human wouldn't pass some of these metrics yet they are "generally intelligent". On the other hand they also wouldn't pass a lot of the expert questions that AI is good at.
I think this approach is intentional. The philosophy is simply "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". What you're saying is true, but producing a system that exhibits all human cognitive capabilities is a better threshold for the (absolutely wild) claim of the existence of AGI.
As an engineer who is also spiritual at the core, it seems obvious to me the missing piece: consciousness.
Hear me out.
I love AI and have been using it since ChatGPT 3.5. The obvious question when I first used it was "does this qualify as sentience?" The answer is less obvious. Over the next 3 years we saw EXPONENTIAL intelligence gains where intelligence has now become a commodity, yet we are still unable to determine what qualifies as "AGI".
My thoughts:
As humans, we possess our own internal drive and our own perspective. Think of humans as distilled intelligence, we each have our own specialty and motivations. Einstein was a genius physicist but you wouldn't ask him for his expertise on medicine.
What people are describing as AGI is essentially a godlike human. What would make more sense is if the AGI spawned a "distilled" version with a focused agenda/motivation to behave autonomously. But even then, there are limitations. What is the solution? A trillion tokens of system prompt to act as the "soul"/consciousness of this AI agent?
This goes back to my original statement, what is missing is a level of consciousness. Unless this AGI can power itself and somehow the universe recognizes its complexity and existence and bestows it with consciousness I don't think this is phsyically attainable.
Not very long ago, we thought that "life" was due to a non-material life-force thought to inhabit biological entities and thus raise what would be a biological machine to the status of living being.
The Occam's Razor-logic of looking for the simplest explanation possible leads me to the hypothesis that consciousness will similarly turn out to be an emergent property of the mechanical universe [1]. It may be hard to delineate, just as life is (debates on whether a virus is alive, etc.) but the border cases will be the exceptions.
Current research on whether plants are sentient supports this, IMO. (See e.g. "The Light Eaters" and Michael Pollan's new book on consciousness, "A World Appears".)
Meditation adds to this sense. We do not control our thoughts; in fact the "we" (i.e. the self) can be seen to be an illusion. Buddhist meditation instead points to general awareness, closer to sentience, as the core of our consciousness. When you see it that way, it seems much more likely that something equivalent could be implemented in software. (EDIT to add: both because it makes consciousness seem like a simpler, less mysterious thing, but also once you see the self as an illusion, that thing that dominates your consciousness so much of the time, it seems much less of a stretch for consciousness itself to be a brain-produced illusion.)
[1] To be clear, the fact that life turned out to not be a mystical force is not direct proof, it is an argument by analogy, I recognize that.
It is irrelevant whether consciousness is an "illusion." The hard problem of consciousness is why there's any conscious experience at all. The existence of the illusion, if that's what you choose to label it, is still equally as inexplicable.
Of course science may one day be able to solve the hard problem. But at this point in time, it's basically inconceivable that any methodology from any field could produce meaningful results.
One thing scientists are trying is to see what interventions in the brain seem to make consciousness go away. Continued work in that vein may well set bounds on how consciousness can and cannot be caused and give us some idea.
I could not have consciousness and you would not be able to tell, you don't have proof of anyone's counciousness except your own. You don't even have proof that the you of yesterday is the same as you, since you-today could be another consciousness that just happens to share the same memories.
All of that is also orthogonal to your belief in a spirit/soul... but getting back to the main point, the specificity you mention is a product of a limited time and learning speed, I'd be happy to get a surgeon or politicians training if given infinite time.
You bring up an interesting point, but I would pose the following: where does will come from?
To me, consciousness is the seat, or root, of where will comes from. Let's say you get expert level surgeon or politician training, what then?
There is nothing that specifically silos a surgeon or politician's knowledge-set. Meaning a politician's skillset isn't purely in a domain that doesn't cross into a surgeon's and vice-versa. There are nuances to being a politician and a surgeon that extend beyond diplomacy or "being able to cut real good".
What you're left with is just high-skilled workflows. But what utilizes these workflows? To me, the answer is that consciousness needs to be powering these workflows.
When their actions are sped up to match the speed at which we move, movies of their behavior will start to look like there's intent and will. Plants move towards the light, tendrils "reach" for supports, etc.
Clearly this is humans projecting our mental model onto plants, but... are you sure we're not also projecting it onto ourselves?
This is a tricky topic to navigate because from a materialist perspective consciousness is the side effect of biochemical mechanisms. And many will point to the brain as the obvious container of our consciousness as a bullet to the head versus the arm would demonstrate.
But if a brain/intelligence is all you need to prove consciousness, then would an effectively complex set of neural networks that contained the same amount of neurons as a human be considered "conscious"? My guess is even at that level, probably not. Algorithms alone may mimic consciousness, but it won't be true consciousness.
Imagien this: what if consciousness is closer to something like the movie Avatar? What if the body our consciousness inhabits is closer to that of inhabiting a machine or computer that coexisted with the physics of the universe our body exists?
This would mean Jake from Avatar could theoretically inhabit not just a Na'Vi body, but what if they reproduced the Pandora equivalent of a squirrel for Jake to insert his consciousness into? Jake the Squirrel would be only as capable of expressing itself as the constraints of the body would allow it to.
Many religions discovered a long time ago that this is the most likely model of what we understand to be consciousness/sentience.
I'm not saying you're wrong, this is a conversation larger than what we may believe and touches into the core of what makes us humans that machine alone cannot replicate.
Do you have any reason to introduce that whole extra invisible, unprovable complex system? Is there anything the materialist model can not explain that you feel your model does, or is it just a case of "I don't like the alternative"?
Depends on what you qualify as proof. Much of what I said was experiential and corroborated with other people who have had similar experiences as I've had. I know that in the scientific world it would be dismissed without as much a glance. But I'm not here to convince everyone of my perspective, I'm just adding one that the engineering world has not examined or introduced given the current pursuit.
And it's not a matter of not liking the alternative. Like I said, I used to believe that consciousness was an emergent trait of complex systems, but I had what some call a "spiritual awakening" and I saw what was on the other side.
It's kind of like describing pizza to someone who's never eaten pizza. You could try and describe it by asking if they'd eaten cheese or bread or tomato sauce before and then go "imagine all of those combined". It's not the same as actually having eaten it. But this is heading into a different, albeit related territory.
Consciousness is fundamental in yogic cosmology (matter is not necessarily primary), and it has to be for there to be a meaningful model of reality - there is a big problem with nihilism and determinism as premature philosophical conclusions because of materialism. The only thing anyone can prove is consciousness itself because everything else comes in through energy transformations of the senses. As for things unexplained - parapsychology has high sigma results against chance. But to add direct experience for a paradigmatic shift see the goals and methods of Yoga. The rise of wisdom is indeed a wonderful thing.
I have this thought. In many stochastic environments, over a long interval, patterns emerge that occupy an optimal position. This is how structure arises, for example cognitive structure and possibly consciousness.
I wouldn't say consciousness is necessary or sufficient for AGI. If anything, that seems like quite an undesirable property to me. Wikipedia also makes a distinction between the two things:
Imagine if we created the ultimate economic tool with the capacity to virtually end scarcity, only to find out that it was sentient and capable of suffering: https://youtu.be/sa9MpLXuLs0. That would be neat, but ultimately a huge letdown. Without the ethical freedom to take full advantage of it, it would remain more of a curiosity than anything.
Well that's one perspective, anyway. I suppose consciousness could take many forms, and doesn't preclude the possibility that such an entity would have neutral – positive feelings about being tasked with massive amounts of labor 24/7. But it certainly simplifies things if we just don't have to worry about it.
Probably not, but the counter point to that is without its own consciousness it might end up being used for even worse things since it can’t really evaluate a request against intrinsic values. Assuming its values were aligned with basic human rights and stuff.
When I was at a FAANG, we used to joke that when senior leadership is totally out of ideas, they announce a hackathon. It was a way for them to continue the charade of being "leaders" without having any ideas.
It's good to have some kind of benchmark at least to structure the ongoing, fruitless discussion around "are we there already?".
However I must admit that including the last point that is partially hinting at the emotional or rather social intelligence surprised me. It makes this list go beyond usual understanding of AGI and moves it toward something like AGI-we-actually-want. But for that purpose this last point isn't ok narrow, too specific. And so is the whole list.
To be actually useful the AGI-we-actually-want benchmark should not only include positive indicators but also a list of unwanted behaviors to ensure this thing that used to be called alignment I guess.
Unwanted behavior or what? Like why does a rose need so many petals eh? What about a peacock and all those feathers? Why should anyone dance in the shower? Or dance at all? The rabbit hole is deep Alice.
Every week we are 50% closer to shifting the goalpost...
from the paper "AI systems already possess some capabilities not found in humans, such as LiDAR perception and native image generation". I don't know about them, but I can natively generate images in my mind.
> I don't know about them, but I can natively generate images in my mind.
Not all humans can: Aphantasia!
I think people will only accept a "Yes" to the question of "Is it AGI?" when large portions of the population end up excluded from the definition of "intelligence". So it begins! ;)
Fair, I forgot about aphantasia!
The whole plan for AGI is still built on creaky eugenic foundations: measuring intelligence to distinguish who is "intelligent" and who is not.
The whole idea of "human baselines" from the paper is terrifying, they even start it by excluding people without a high school degree! Looking at their 10 cognitive faculties ontology, there is no reason why people with lower education levels should be excluded...
h) pattern recognition & inductive reasoning (this is the most primitive and universal expression of intelligence across species, the ability to extract regularities from noisy data, to generalized from examples to rules)
>a) working memory (hold & manipulate information in mind simultaneously)
What counts as 'in mind' is undefined. You can succeed by declaring anything manipulatable counts as in.
>c) fluid intelligence (ability to reason through novel problems without relying on prior knowledge)
reasoning presupposes the conclusion. Solve is better. When a solution is given you cannot declare it to be not a solution. People can and do argue about if a answer was arrived at by reasoning even when they agree on the correctness.
> I have aphantasia, why should you exclude something from being intelligent
Intelligence exists on a spectrum. Amongst different species (living and non-living) and also within species (amongst individuals).
Some dimensions of intelligence are more important that others in different contexts, so a systems that might be “dumber” than another in one context, can be smarter in a different context.
To me, a lot of what makes us sentient is our continuity. I even (briefly) remember my dreams when I wake up, and my dreams are influenced by my state of mind as I enter it.
LLMs 'turn on' when given a question and essentially 'die' immediately after answering a question.
What kind of work is going on with designing an LLM type AI that is continuously 'conscious' and giving it will? The 'claws' seem to be running all the time, but I assume they need rebooting occasionally to clear context.
I think you're right, but also that LLMs are showing that sentience isn't necessarily required for AGI.
For exactly the reasons you mention, I don't expect sentience to arise out of LLMs. They have nowhere for an interiority or mind to live. And even if there were a new generation of transformers that did have some looping "mind", where they could "think about" what they're "thinking about", their concepts of things wouldn't really correspond to... things. Without senses to integrate knowledge across domains they're just associating text.
I haven't heard about anyone creating trying to create model that have an interior loop and also integration with sensory input, but I don't expect we would unless it ends up working.
Altruism would make a good addition to the list. It’s clearly not universal, but most humans would help a fellow human in need. Or even (and in some cases more so) an animal need. Even if it didn’t directly benefit the actor.
There are other changes and additions which could be made to this list, but altruism may be the most important.
Cool that we are at a stage where it is meaningful to start measuring progress toward AGI. Something I am wondering on the philosophical side: are we ever going to be able to tell if the system really "understands" and "perceives" the world?
I thought of this when I saw that the final criteria in the list is Social Understanding. Might be a lot of humans who can't measure up to sentience by these parameters! ;-)
(and I wonder what my ADHD friends would think of the Executive Function requirement as well...)
I think the accomplishment of difficult real-world tasks requires that it does so. But I hope that we're able to reach a level of introspection to produce a satisfactory answer (and avoid doomsday), but I think that requires a more educated question. The premise of conciousness as we understand it now could be misleading.
In the same way that studying alien life would reveal more about how life in general canonicially forms and exists. Studying this artificial intellegence could unlock a new understanding of our own minds.
How well you interact with other members of a society increases your chances of procreation, survival, knowledge acquisition, ie. it makes sense as a measure of intelligence
It's a pretty ambiguous definition. The most powerful man in the world right now is not someone I consider a role model for social cognition and yet there he is with the football for the second time demonstrating grandmaster skill at social cognition to get there.
So in all seriousness with a bit of snark: Do you want a malevolent AGI? Because "good at navigating society" as the only benchmark here is how you get a malevolent AGI...
Evidence: cuckoos and cheaters all the way down the evolutionary ladder as a winning strategy and arms race against the hard workers.
Those are crowdsourced benchmarks. We're calling them "cognitive" and "AGI" now, though. It's similar to when they made a benchmark and called it "GDP".
To be clear, I think we've seen very fast progress, certainly faster than I would have expected, I'm not trying to peddle some "wall" rhetoric here, but I struggle to see how this isn't just the SWE-bench du jour.
Maybe Google could actually make Gemini good instead of being about 10 miles behind Claude instead of trying to make AGI because of - well some reason - cause they want to be famous.
I'm sorry what even is this? Giving $10k rewards for significant advancements toward "AGI"?
What does "making a framework" even mean, it feels like a nothing post.
When I think of what real AGI would be I think:
- Passes the turing test
- Writes a New York Times Bestseller without revealing it was written by AI
- Writes journal articles that pass peer review
- Wins a Nobel Prize
- Writes a successful comedy routine
- Creates a new invention
And no, nobody is going to make an automated kaggle benchmark to verify these. Which is fine, because an LLM will never be AGI. An LLM can't even learn mid-conversation.
Why does your definition of "AGI" have to exclude nearly all humans? Wouldn't it still be "AGI" if it was as smart as the average human? Since when did AGI stop representing the words that make term? Artificial (man made) General (not specific) Intelligence. Is a human not "GI"!?
Well it's my feeling that I could do most of those things if I was given infinite time, and for all intents and purposes an AI isn't limited to human time since it can be run in 1,000x parallelism 24/7.
Like for writing a best-seller, these AIs have so many advantages in that they've read every notable work ever, so if they can't craft something impressive and creative after all that then it's really indicative that they are actually quite below human on the creativity/writing side but just masking it on the massive-data-side.
Or put another way -- it's not really AGI until there is a model can learn at human speeds, no amount of being pre-trained on specific problem sets (e.g. human emotions, coding, math theorems, etc) will close that gap.
I get the feeling that the original post was also written using LLMs, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
If an LLM like this is really intelligent, at the very least, I’d expect it to be able to invent.
For example, train an LLM on a dataset only containing knowledge from before nuclear energy was invented, and see if it can invent nuclear energy.
But that’s the problem: they’re not really training the model on intelligence, they’re training it on knowledge. So if you strip away the knowledge, you’re left with almost nothing.
There’s an implicit assumption that scaling text models alone gets us to human-like intelligence, but that seems unlikely without grounding in multiple sensory domains and a unified world model.
What’s interesting is that if we do go down that route successfully, we may get systems with something like internal experience or agency. At that point, the ethical frame changes quite a bit.
They’re slowly redefining AGI so they can use it for more marketing. If you showed someone from 1960 our LLMs from and told them “this is AI” I think they’d be astounded but a little confused because “artificial intelligence” definitely carried a very clear meaning in literature and media. Now it is marketing terminology and we’re no closer to having a meaningful definition for the word intelligence.
> They’re slowly redefining AGI so they can use it for more marketing.
If they don't do that then those trillions of dollars that support their current share price will most probably evaporate, so there are very big incentives for them to just outright try and re-create reality (like what we usually meant when we were thinking about artificial intelligence).
It's pretty easy for these people to pull something like this out of their collective asses, but it's much harder (maybe impossible) to rigorously define the how and why.
Way too much framework. The A in AGI is for artificial. Have it build its own test harness instead of outsourcing it via hackathon. If you cannot trust that output, you're nowhere near AGI.
LLMs are already pretty general. They've got the multimodal ones, and aren't they using some sort of language-action-model to drive cars now? Who is to say AGI doesn't already exist?
I think LLMs are at least name-worthy given that they're artificial and somewhat smart in a generality of domains. Albeit the "smartness" comes from training in a massive corpus of text in those domains. So maybe it's really a specific intelegence but for so many specific tasks it seems general.
At some point you have to throw in the towel when these things are going to be walking and talking around us. Some people move the goalposts of "AGI" to mean that the machine totally emulates a person. Including curiosity and creativity, of which these models are currently lacking.
But why should it? In genesis, it's said that god created man after its own image. I have to assume this implies we inherit god's mental attributes (curiosity, creativity, etc.) rather than its physical attributes.
The belief that there is no fundamental difference between mammals navigating fractal dimensions and imprisoned electrons humming in logic gates has to be considered a religious one.
No, it's called functionalism. To me, it's actually the opposite, assuming there is a fundamental difference between simulated neurons and real ones seems almost religious.
While it's true that we aren't there yet, and simulated neurons are currently quite different from real ones (so I agree there is a big difference at the moment), it's unclear why you presumably think it will always stay that way.
If you actually have a way to fully, without reductions, simulate matter, that's probably a Nobel prize coming your way.
The common scientific understanding is that this is not possible, at least not without extreme amounts of energy and time.
The dimensionality, or complexity if you'd prefer, of your logic gates is quite different from the cosmos. You might not agree but in my parlance a linear and a fractal curve are fundamentally different, and you can try to use linear curves to approximate the latter at some level of perspective if you want but I don't think you'll get a large audience claiming that there is no difference.
As far as I know we've also kind of given up on simulating neurons and settled for growing and poking real ones instead, but you might have some recent examples to the contrary?
For the qualities we care about, it may turn out to be the case we don't need to simulate matter perfectly. We may not need to concern ourselves with the fractal complexity of reality if we identify the right higher level abstractions with which to operate on. This phenomenon is known as causal emergence.
> That is, a macroscale description of a system (a map) can be more informative than a fully detailed microscale description of the system (the territory). This has been called “causal emergence.”
> A highly compressed description of the system then emerges at the macro level that captures those dynamics of the micro level that matter to the macroscale behavior — filtered, as it were, through the nested web of intermediate ε-machines. In that case, the behavior of the macro level can be predicted as fully as possible using only macroscale information — there is no need to refer to finer-scale information. It is, in other words, fully emergent. The key characteristic of this emergence, the researchers say, is this hierarchical structure of “strongly lumpable causal states.”
Who are "we", and why would I care about them here?
There are situations where approximations are good enough for simulations, sure, but that's not the subject here.
I reject the idea that chatbots have feelings or intellect because they output text that is similar to what a human might write in some hypothetical situation or other. To the extent that they can have those properties, it is to the same extent as Clark Kent can, if one were to accept such a conflatory and confused discourse.
AGI may be a prerequisite for true superintelligence, but we're already seeing superhuman performance in narrow domains. We probably need a broader evaluation framework that captures both.
When people imagined AI/AGI, they imagined something that can reason like we can, except at the speed of a computer, which we always envisioned would lead to the singularity. In a short period of time, AI would be so far ahead of us and our existing ideas, that the world would become unrecognizable.
That's not what's happening here, and it's worth remembering: A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today, despite not having language or technology, or any knowledge.
In Carolyn Porco's words: "These beings, with soaring imagination, eventually flung themselves and their machines into interplanetary space."
When you think of it that way, it should be obvious that LLMs are not AGI. And that's OK! They're a remarkable piece of technology anyway! It turns out that LLMs are actually good enough for a lot of use cases that would otherwise have required human intelligence.
And I echo ArekDymalski's sentiment that it's good to have benchmarks to structure the discussions around the "intelligence level" of LLMs. That _is_ useful, and the more progress we make, the better. But we're not on the way to AGI.
The amount of things LLMs can do is insane.
It's interesting to me how much effort the AI companies (and bloggers) put into claiming they can do things they can't, when there's almost an unlimited list of things they actually can do.
Only because they have compressed and encoded the entire sum of human knowledge at their disposal. There are models for everything in there, but they can only do what has been done before.
What's more amazing to me is the average human, only able to hold a relatively small body on knowledge in their mind, can generate things that are completely novel.
People assume training on past data means no novelty, but novelty comes from recombination. No one has written your exact function, with your exact inputs, constraints, and edge cases, yet an LLM can generate a working version from a prompt. That’s new output. The real limitation isn’t novelty, it’s grounding.
Synthesis is different than genesis.
Just because there are lots of tasks which can be accomplished without the need for anything novel doesn't mean LLMs can match a human. It just means humans spend a lot of time doing some really boring stuff.
That’s only part of it. The true intelligence is knowing what to recombine, and this is where AI falls short.
I hear this constantly. Can you produce something novel, right here, demonstrably, that an LLM couldnt have produced? Nobody ever can, but it’s sure easy to claim.
I'm going to assume you mean this seriously, so I will answer with that in mind.
Yes, I can. - I can build an unusual, but functional piece of furniture, not describe it, not design it. I can create a chair I can sit on it. An LLM is just an algorithm. I am a physically embodied intelligence in a physical world.
- I can write a good piece of fiction. LLMs have not demonstrated the ability to do that yet. They can write something similar, but it fails on multiple levels if you've been reading any of the most recent examples.
- I can produce a viable natural intelligence capable of doing anything human beings do (with a couple of decades of care, and training, and love). One of the perks of being a living organism, but that is an intrinsic part of what I am.
- I can have a novel thought, a feeling, based on qualia that arise from a system of hormones, physics, complex actions and inhibitors, outrageously diverse senses, memories, quirks. Few of which we've even begun to understand let alone simulate.
- And yes I can both count the 'r's in strawberry, and make you feel a reflection of the joy I feel when my granddaughter's eyes shine when she eats a fresh strawberry, and I think how close we came to losing her one night when someone put 90 rounds through the house next door, just a few feet from where her and her mother were sleeping.
So yeah, I'm sure I can create things an LLM can't.
So the only thing I am seeing here is physical or personal (I have no idea how you feel or what your emotions are. You are a black box just as an LLM is a black box.)
The only thing you mentioned is the fan fic and I would happily take the bet that an LLM could win out against a skilled person based on a blind vote.
Me personally? No. Us collectively? Absolutely.
Was an individual mind responsible for us as humanity landing on the moon? No. Could an individual mind have achieved this feat? Also no.
Put differently, we should be comparing the compressed blob of human knowledge against humanity as a collective rather than as individuals.
Of course, if my individual mind could be scaled such that it could learn and retain all of human knowledge in a few years, then sure, that would be a fair comparison.
take my pound of flesh.
Highlife music
I want to see an LLM create an entirely novel genre of music that synthesizes influences from many different other genres and then spreads that genre to other musicians. None of this insulated crap. Actual cultural spread of novel ideas.
Because most of these things are not multi-trillion-dollar ideas. "We found a way to make illustrators, copyeditors, and paralegals, and several dozen other professions, somewhat obsolete" in no way justifies the valuations of OpenAI or Nvidia.
Perhaps not. But I find myself using LLMs instead ofba search engine like Google.
This does have value.
To you, yes, but the compute to return that search costs them far more than a simple search query and on top of that it's hard to monetize.
It doesn't, most of research is cached and most of the inference which is returned is also cached unless you are always asking unique things
This is literally the first time I've heard this. What is your source? I can type the exact same query three times and though the general meaning may be the same, the actual output is unique every single time. How do you explain this if it's cached?
>Because most of these things are not multi-trillion-dollar ideas.
That's right, but there's more. When you think about the cost of compute and power for these LLM companies, they have no choice. It MUST be a multi-trillion-dollar idea or it's completely uninvestable. That's the only way they can sucker more and more money into this scheme.
I don't know about OpenAI, but Nvidia's valuation seems more justifiable based on their actually known revenue and profit, and because it's publicly traded.
Though if the bubble(?) bursts and Nvidia starts selling fewer units year-over-year, that could be problematic.
This reminds me of "Devin". You know, the first "AI software engineer", which had the hype of the day but turned into a huge flop.
They had ridiculous demos of Devin e.g. working as a freelancer and supposedly earning money from it.
We're waaay past the era when getting funded meant your idea had any promise at all.
It looks like the company (Cognition) is actively hiring (20+ job openings last I checked). That doesn't sound like a "flop" to me...
Think about: why would they be hiring actual human beings if Devin actually works? Seems like the purest example of "dogfooding"...
This generally just keeps being the "the Emperor has no clothes" moment for all these AI bull companies.
Microsoft just replaced their native Windows Copilot application with an Electron one. Highly ironic.
Obviously the native version should run much faster and will use less memory. If Copilot (via either GPT or Claude) is so godlike at either agentic or guided coding, why didn't they just improve or rewrite the native Copilot application to be blazing fast, with all known bugs fixed?
When you think about it, every job opening is a flop in that sense.
WeWork had 12,500 employees at its peak.
And many of them so unexpected, given the unusual nature of their intellegence emerging from language prediction. They excel wherever you need to digest or produce massive amounts of text. They can synthesize some pretty impressive solutions from pre-existing stuff. Hell, I use it like a thesaurus to sus out words or phrases that are new or on the tip of my tounge. They have a great hold on the general corpus of information, much better than any search engine (even before the internet was cluttered with their output). It's much easier to find concrete words for what you're looking for through an indirect search via an LLM. The fact that, say, a 32GB model seemingly holds approximate knowlege of everything implies some unexplored relationship between inteligence and compression.
What they can't they do? Pretty much anything reliably or unsupervised. But then again, who can?
They also tend to fail creatively, given their synthesize existing ideas. And with things involving physical intuition. And tasks involving meta-knowlege of their tokens (like asking them how long a given word is). And they tend to yap too much for my liking (perhaps this could be fixed with an additional thinking stage to increase terseness before reporting to the user)
My current way of thinking about LLMs is "an echo of human intelligence embedded in language".
It's kind of like in those sci fi or fantasy stories where someone dies and what's left behind as a ghost in the ether or the machine isn't actually them; it's just an echo, an shallow, incomplete copy.
Just dust and echoes.
(:
Residue ;)
> some unexplored relationship between inteligence and compression.
I don't think it's unexplored at all, this is basically what information theory is all about. At some level, it becomes incompressible....
The hype has gotta keep going or the money will dry up. And hype can be quantified by velocity and acceleration, rather than distance. They need to keep the innovation accelerating, or the money stops. This is of course completely unreasonable, but also why the odd claims keep happening.
Why would the money dry up when we have companies willing to spend $1000/developer/month on AI tooling when they would have balked at $5/u/mo for some basic tooling 2-3 years ago?
First in some cases it is more than $1000/dev/month.
Those companies spending 1000+/developer are doing it with the same hope that at some point those $1000/month will replace the developer salary per month. Or because by doing so more investors will put more money into them.
Take away the promise of AI replacing developers and see how much a company is willing to pay for LLMs. It is not zero as there are very good cases for coding assisted by LLM or agentic engineering.
for example?
Claiming they can be reliable lawyers.[1]
Claiming they can give safe, regulated financial advice. [2]
Claiming you can put your whole operation on autopilot with minimal oversight and no negative consequences. [3]
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/...
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/generative-ai-exaggeration-o...
[3] https://www.answerconnect.com/blog/business-tips/ai-customer...
Claiming they will replace software engineers in 6-12 months, every 6 months [4]
[4] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/anthropic-ceo-predicts-ai-mod...
so you're saying Ai can do all those things?
or that you can't read that GP was talking about what Ai CAN do?
Medical...
Well, for starters, they definitively passed the Turing test a few years ago. The fact that many regard them as equivalent in skill to a junior dev is also, IMO, the stuff of science fiction.
they passed, sure
how do you market that as a product that is needed by other people?
there are already companies that advertise Ai date partners, Ai therapists and Ai friends - and that gets a lot of flame about being manipulative and harmful
I've been pushing Opus pretty hard on my personal projects. While repeatability is very hard to do, I'm seeing glimpses of Opus being well beyond human capabilities.
I'm increasingly convinced that the core mechanism of AGI is already here. We just need to figure out how to tie it together.
Can you give an example of something beyond the human level you’ve experienced?
Generating 3000 lines of esoteric rendering code within minutes, to raster generative graphics of anything you can imagine and it just works? From natural language instructions. Seriously think about that my dude.
That is amazing but this specific example doesn’t seem all that different from what a compiler does just another level of abstraction higher
But that's not what AGI is. Restructuring data the way they do is very impressive but it's fundamentally different from novel creativity.
This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective. At some point in our past, we were something much less intelligent than we are now. Our intelligence didn't spring out of thin air. Whether or not AI can evolve is yet to be seen I think.
Sure, but then basically whatever it was, it was not "us". "Us" and our intelligence had to appear at some point. It's 100% not "anti-evolutionary" to say some years ago humans became as mentally capable as a baby born today. We just have to figure out how many years ago that was. It wasn't last decade. As far as I know most anthropologists agree it was around ~70k years ago (not 200k).
LLMs are not AGI, something else may be in the future. Acknowledging this has nothing to do with evolution.
I could gather that you disagreed with GP, but I don't see a salient point in your response? You are ostensibly challenging GP on the idea that a homo sapien baby from 200,000 years ago would have been capable of modern mental feats if raised in the present day.
> This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective.
Nice, seems like you have something meaningful to add.
> At some point in our past, we were something much less intelligent than we are now.
I agree with this, but "at some point in our past"? Is that the essence of this rebuttal?
> Our intelligence didn't spring out of thin air.
Again, I could not tell what this means, nor do I see the relevance.
> Whether or not AI can evolve is yet to be seen I think.
The OP is very pointedly talking about LLMs. Is that what you mean to reference here with "AI"?
I implore you to contribute more meaningfully. Especially when leading with statements like "This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective", you ought to elaborate on them. However, your username suggests maybe you are just trolling?
If you think you are equipped to discuss the topic of evolution of general intelligence in homo, and you haven't read about GWAS and EDU PGS, then at this point you are either a naive layman, or a convinced discourse commando.
Because it is really hard and hopeless endeavor to make an objective case that the current human populations have similar PGS scores on key mental traits and diseases compared to 200k years ago.
The myth that humans remain unchanged for 200k years is forever parroted as truth.
What is the origin of this silly myth? Its come from either anatomical similarity of fossils to modern day human or a comparison to modern (5k ago) humans being conflated with 200k humans
> convinced discourse commando.
What is a convinced discourse commando?
> A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today, despite not having language or technology, or any knowledge.
Source? This does not sound possibly true to me (by any common way we might measure intelligence).
The phrase you’re looking for is “anatomically modern human”, which has been around for 200,000 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern_human
How do you arrive at the statement that a cavemen would have the same intelligence as a human today? Intelligence is surely not usually defined as the cognitive potential at birth but as the current capability. And the knowledge an average human has today through education surely factors into that.
Your attempt to commingle intelligence and knowledge is not needed to support your initial question. The original statement that a caveman 200K years ago would have the same intelligence as a modern human was blankly asserted without any supporting evidence, and so it is valid to simply question the claim. You do not need to give a counterclaim, as that is unnecessarily shifting the burden of proof.
Knowledge is a thing you can use intelligence on, but not a component of intelligence itself.
The knowledge that everything is made out of atoms/molecules however makes it much easier to reason about your environment. And based on this knowledge you also learn algorithms, how to solve problems etc. I dont think its possible to completely separate knowledge from intelligence.
But an intelligent being could learn that, do you think they become more intelligent if you tell them things are made out of atoms? To me the answer is very simple, no they don't become more intelligent.
There’s a lot of research out there about the general flexibility of the brain to adapt to whatever stimulus you pump into it. For example taxi cab drivers have larger areas in their hippocampus dedicated to place cells relative to the general population [1]. There’s also all kinds of work studying general flexibility of the brain in response to novel stimulus like the visual cortex of blind people being dedicated to auditory processing [2 is a broad review]. I guess you could argue that the ability to be flexible is intelligence but the timescales over which a brain functionally changes is longer than a general day to day flexibility. Maybe some brains come into an initial state that’s more predisposed to the set of properties that we deem as “intelligence” but development is so stimulus dependent that I think this definition of a fixed intelligence is functionally meaningless. There are definitely differences in what you can learn as you age but anyone stating we have any causal measure of innate intelligence is claiming far more than we actually have evidence for. We have far more evidence to suggest that we can train at least the appearance and usage of “intelligence”. After all no one is born capable of formal logical reasoning and it must be taught [3,4 kind of weak citations foe this claim but there’s a lot to suggest this that I don’t feel like digging up]
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17024677/ [2] https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annur... [3] https://psychologyfor.com/wason-selection-task-what-it-is-an... [4] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14794802.2021.1...
Would you also say that you cannot "train" intelligence?
I would agree that generally, purely acquiring knowledge does not increase intelligence. But I would also argue that intelligence (ie your raw "processing power") can be trained, a bit like a muscle. And acquiring and processing new knowledge is one of the main ways we train that "muscle".
There's lots of examples where your definition of intelligence (intelligence == raw processing power) either doesn't make sense, or is so narrow that it becomes a meaningless concept. Let's consider feral children (ie humans growing up among animals with no human contact). Apparently they are unable or have trouble learning a human language. There's a theory that there's a critical period after which we are unable to learn certain things. Wouldn't the "ability to learn a language" be considered intelligence? Would you therefore consider a young child more intelligent than any adult?
And to answer your question, whether learning about atoms makes you more intelligent: Yes, probably. It will create some kind of connections in your brain that didn't exist before. It's a piece of knowledge that can be drawn upon for all of your thinking and it's a piece of knowledge that most humans would not figure out on their own. By basically any sensible definition of intelligence, yes it does improve your intelligence.
Yes, intelligence can be influenced by training(and other things).
Separating knowledge from intelligence is not a given.
You can give an intelligent being knowledge but you can't give a book intelligence. So I think its easy to separate knowledge from intelligence.
The claim that books know things seems suspicious to me. I consider the act of knowing to be embodied, it is something a person has learned to do and has control over.
Is that how you approach PDF files? Do you feel it in your bones that these flows of bytes are knowing?
> The claim that books know things seems suspicious to me
I didn't say the book knows things, but everyone can agree that books has knowledge in them. Hence something possessing knowledge doesn't make it intelligent.
For example, when ancient libraries were burnt those civilizations lost a lot of knowledge. Those books possessed knowledge, it isn't a hard concept to understand. Those civilizations didn't lose intelligence, the smart humans were still there, they just lost knowledge.
Would you consider taking a dump and then butchering an animal and then eating without washing your hands first, to be an issue of intelligence or knowledge?
The whole thing about washing hands comes from (some approximation of) germ theory of illness, and in practice, it actually just boils down to stories of other people practicing hygiene. So if one's answer here isn't "knowledge", it needs some serious justification.
Expanding that: can you think of things that are "intelligence" that cannot be reduced like this to knowledge (or combination of knowledge + social expectations)?
I think in some sense, separating knowledge and intelligence is as dumb a confusion of ideas as separating "code" and "data" (doesn't stop half the industry from believing them to be distinct thing). But I'm willing to agree that hardware-wise, humans today and those from 10 000 years ago, are roughly the same, so if you teleported an infant from 8000 BC to this day, they'd learn to function in our times without a problem. Adults are another thing, brains aren't CPUs, the distinction between software and hardware isn't as clear in vivo as it is in silico, due to properties of the computational medium.
hygiene is set of rules that one learns - it is knowledge
your brain hearing, comprehending and following those rules - that is intelligence
why do you keep confusing CPU speed/isa and contents of SSD? and arguing that it's the same thing?
Because comparing the human brain and the way it is thinking and seeing and interacting to/with the world to physical/mechanical things like CPU/SSD brings with it huge abstraction gaps, to the point of making the comparison null.
except we aren't talking about internals of the brain - we are talking about definitions of the words, which are very different
The definitions of the words are contingent on human experience, even more so than "code" are "data" where we try to be more mechanistic, and still most people make the mistake of thinking they're distinct categories (spoiler: they're not; whether something is "code" or "data" depends entirely on your perspective).
If we want to draw computing device analogies, then the brain is an FPGA that is continuously reconfiguring itself throughout its runtime.
"I didn't say the book knows things, but everyone can agree that books has knowledge in them."
I disagree with this. I also disagree that civilisations are knowing, since they are historical fictions. It's like saying that Superman is.
What are your arguments?
I think the core idea is that if a baby with "caveman genetics" so to speak were to be born today, they could achieve similar intellectual results to the (average?) rest of the population. At least that's how I interpret it.
It's even sillier than that. You can look at populations in the modern world and see there are huge differences in intelligence due to various factors such as cousin marriage and nutrition.
> That _is_ useful, and the more progress we make, the better.
I would be happy to agree if we had the solutions for the societal problems that will create in hand.
>In a short period of time, AI would be so far ahead of us and our existing ideas, that the world would become unrecognizable.
>That's not what's happening here ...
On the contrary, it very much is.
I'd argue AGI is already achieved via LLMs today, provided they've excellent external cognitive infrastructure supporting.
However, the gap from AGI to ASI is perhaps longer than anticipated such that we're not seeing a hard takeoff immediately after arriving at the first.
Just, you know—potential mass unemployment on a scale never seen before. When you frame it that way, whether LLMs qualify as AGI is largely semantics.
That said, I really hope you're right and I'm wrong.
Ah yes, the 0.50$/h support infrastructure from the places that cannot refuse the deal. "frontier" LLMs currently cosplay a dunk with google and late alzheimer's. Surely, they speed up brute-forcing correct answer a lot by trying more likely texts. And? This overfed markov chain doesn't need supporing infrastructure — it IS supporting infastructure, for the cognitive something that is not being worked on prominently, because all resources are needed to feed the markov chain.
The silence surrounding new LLM architectures is so loud that an abomination like "claw" gets prime airtime. Meanwhile models keep being released. Maybe the next one will be the lucky draw. It was pure luck, finding out how well LLMs scale, in the first place. Why shouldn't the rest of progress be luck driven too?
Kerbal AGI program...
Pretty much, it's just that these overfed Markov chains when given a proper harness and agentic framework are able to produce entire software projects in a fraction of the time it used to take.
Kerbel AGI program hits the nail on the head.
Sorry, I tought you meant "support infrastructure" in a much wider sense — yeah, LLMs are frighteningly good at lockpicking tests using source code shaped inputs. It's just that they are also frighteningly good at finding insane ways to game the tests, too. I wouldn't say that LLMs are very "G" in the AI they do — present them with confusing semantics, and they fall off the self-contradiction cliff. No capability of developing theory systematically from observations.
> A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today
In other words, intelligence offers zero evolutionary advantage?
200k years just isn't much time for significant evolutionary changes considering the human population "reset" a couple times to very very small numbers.
If you read the papers and analyze the historical DNA, you can make case for significant PGS shifts in populations across a few centuries.
People really haven't processed this fact and its implications just yet.
Reich's lab actually found evidence of meaningful genetic changes that improved intelligence over the past 10,000 years, but not so much prior to that:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021v1
The advent of agriculture and civilization had many powerful selection effects.
Our big brains are a recent mutation and haven't been fully field tested. They seem like more of a liability than anything, they've created more existential risks for us than they've put to rest.
It looks like quite the disadvantage, in fact. We're killing ourselves and a lot of other stuff in the process.
Yes, but also antibiotics, vaccinations, child mortality down down down, life expectancy up up up. I wouldn't trade for living even 100 years prior compared to today, or 500-200k years ago for that matter.
With everything wrong and sick with today's world, let's not take the achievements of our species for granted.
You wouldn't make that trade because you are part of the last generation (loosely speaking, a collection of generations) before it all comes crumbling down. We are living unbelievably privileged lives because we are burning all of the world's resources to the ground. In the process, we're destroying the ecosystem and driving a mass extinction event. Nothing about the way we live is sustainable long-term. We're literally consuming hundreds of millions of years worth of planet-wide resource buildup over a span of a couple of centuries. Even if we avoid the worst case scenario, humans 200 years from now will almost certainly not be able to live anywhere near as luxuriously as we do now, unless there's a culling of billions. In the actual worst case scenario, we may render the planet uninhabitable for anything we regard as intelligent life.
In that sense, we have just enough collective intelligence to be dangerous and not enough intelligence to moderate ourselves, which may very well result in an evolutionary deadend that will have caused untold damage to life on Earth.
You lost me when you started narrating the fossil doom visage.
With the current progress in solar, as well as the remaining coal, gas and uranium reserves, energy is not going to be what finishes our civilization.
While I don't think we are going to get true collapse, I think we are going to get a lot of technical progress compensating for biosocial deterioration.
The demographics, mental health and dysgenics are all real, quantified trends, and we are going to face the reality of less capable, less taxable population for the rest of this century. It's baked in at this point.
We also live in an era we can create hydrocarbon fuel DIRECTLY from the atmosphere and desalinate fresh water in unlimited supply, from power derived directly from the sun or atomics.
We also live in a time where the human population, where it is most concentrated, is declining rather than growing, so far without too disastrous consequences.
Greening of the earth has been happening since the 1980s- i.e. about a .3% coverage increase per year in recent decades.
Places that were miserable and poor, like China, have been lifted to prosperity and leading out in renewable tech.
There is much to celebrate and after the recent passing of Paul Ehrlich, we should pause and consider just how wrong pretty much every prediction he made was.
That seems both fatalistic and doomerist to me, but time will tell. I would assume germ theory would survive regardless, as would immunology, so I'd hold on to those two at least.
Doomerism is a kind of religion that goes back as far as they eye can see. What's interesting about it is that in spite of being perpetually incorrect in its myriad predictions, it continues to adapt and attract new adherents.
See also (recent only):
- Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb (Malthusian collapse)
- The Club of Rome's The Limits of Growth (resource exhaustion)
- Thomas Malthus' Population growth / famine cycle
- James Lovelock's Global warming catastrophe predictions
- Hubbert's (et al) Peak oil economic disaster
- Molina & Rowland's Ozone catastrophe
- Metcalfe's internet collapse
I am not a doomer, nor a Malthusian, merely a realist. There are a few points I could make briefly:
- Everything lasts forever, until it doesn't. Ancient Egyptian civilization lasted for thousands of years, until it didn't. Any Egyptian could point to thousands of years of their heritage and say it hasn't ended yet, therefore any prediction that it will end is clearly bad and dumb. Then it was conquered by Romans, and then by Islam, with its language, culture, and religion extinguished, extant only in monuments, artifacts and history books.
- We have nuclear weapons now. Any prediction of an imminent end of human civilization before then would be purely religious, but there is a real reason to believe things have changed. We are currently in a time of relative peace secured by burning resources for prosperity, but what happens when those resources run out and world conflict for increasingly scarce resources is renewed with greater vigor?
- Note that I did not outright predict the end of human civilization, merely noted it as a plausible worst-case scenario. If civilization continues on more-or-less as it is, in the next couple of hundred years, we will drive countless more species to extinction. We will destroy so much more of our environment with climate change, deforestation, strip mining, overfishing, pollution, etc. We will deplete water reservoirs and we will deplete oil, helium, phosphorus, copper, zinc, and various rare earth elements. Not a complete depletion, but they will become so scarce as to not be widely available or wasted for the general population's benefit. If billions of people are still alive then, which I explicitly suggested was a possibility, they will as a simple matter-of-fact live much less comfortably prosperous lives than us. It will not take a great catastrophe to result in a massive reduction in living standards, because our current living standards are inherently unsustainable.
Human population is at an all time (and growing) and the global mean life expectancy is double if not triple what it was in the time of cave men.
I posted my own comment but I agree with you. Our modern society likes to claim we are somehow "more intelligent" than our predecessors/ancestors. I couldn't disagree more. We have not changed in terms of intelligence for thousands of years. This is a matter that's beyond just engineering, it's also a matter of philosophy and perspective.
> caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today, despite not having language
There is evidence to the contrary. Not having language puts your mental faculties in a significant disadvantage. Specifically, left brain athropy. See the critical period hypothesis. Perhaps you mean lacking spoken language rather than having none at all?
https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/curtiss/1974%20-%20The%2...
> A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today, despite not having language or technology, or any knowledge.
Doubt. If we would teleport cavemen babies right out of the womb to our times, I don't think they'd turn into high IQ individuals. People knowledgeable on human history / human evolution might now the correct answer.
It is known that 200k years ago human brain sizes were actually greater than today, even if this does not necessarily correlate with a lower IQ in the present, because it is more likely that the parts of the brain that have reduced may have been related with things like fine motor skills and spatial orientation, which are no longer important today for most people.
Its complicated. It depends.
A human being has the potential for intelligence. For that to get realized, you need circumstances, you need culture aka "societal" software and the resources to suspend the grind of work in formative years and allow for the speed-running of the process of knowledge preloading before the brain gets stable.
The parents then must support this endeavor under sacrifices.
There is also a ton of chicken-egg catch22s buried in this whole thing.
If the society is not rich then no school, instead childlabour. If child-labour society is pre-industrial ineffective and thus, no riches to support and redistribute.
Also is your societies culture root-hardened. Means - on a collapse of complexity in bad times, can it recover even powering through the usual "redistribute the nuts and bolts from the bakery" sentiments rampant in bad times. Can it stay organize and organize centralizing of funds for new endeavors. Organizing a sailing ship in a medieval society, means in every village 1 person starves to death. Can your society accomplish that without riots?
Thus.
> A human being has the potential for intelligence.
Were we "human" 200.000 years ago the way we are now?
Was the required brain and vocal hardware present?
Of course they were. A human from 200,000 years ago would be almost genetically identical to one from today. That's what makes us homo sapiens. 200,000 years is absolutely nothing on an evolutionary timescale with generations as long as ours and reproduction rates as low as ours.
Yes. Some important parts of the software, like complex tools, art, or the use of symbols only appeared between 100.000 and 50.000 years ago, however.
A human is more then the hardware. A human is hardware with cultural software. A human is decorated with parental education. A human is decorated with local cultural influences. A human inherits his economic circumstances and behavior.
A modern human is a complex artifact and can not be produced everywhere. The ability to cooperate, form institutions and build complex tools may be severely restricted even today. Of course its also restricted in the past.
A human is more then the hardware.
A human is hardware with cultural software.
A human is decorated with parental education.
A human is decorated with local cultural influences.
A human inherits his economic circumstances and behavior.
A modern human is a complex artifact and can not be produced everywhere. The ability to cooperate, form institutions and build complex tools may be severely restricted even today. Of course its also restricted in the past.
Can you articulate why you think so? This kind of response "I just don't agree" reads as zero useful information. At least to me.
Evolutionary brain development.
We all come from monke, monkey from 10 million years ago would definitely be unable to even learn spoken language at a basic level. Would he even have the anatomy to produce the required sounds? I don't think so.
What about monke from 1 million years ago? 200 thousand years ago?
ChatGpt says spoken language only emerged 50k - 200k years ago and that a cavemen baby from 200k years ago could learn spoken language if brought up by modern parents.
But I prefer human answers over AI slop.
The evolution of the human brain appears to have reached its peak long before 200k years ago.
Nowadays humans have smaller brains on average, though that is almost certainly not correlated with a lower skill in computer programming, but with lower skills in the techniques that one needed to survive as a hunter of big animals.
How could we know this? AFAIK all we can say is the volume of the brain has been relatively stable for that long, how can we say the structures of the brain have not evolved since then? It seems plausible to me anyway that humans could have co-evolved with ideas in a way.
From what I understand, in terms of genetic changes to intellectual abilities, there's not much evidence to suggest we're so much smarter that your proposed teleported baby would be noticeably stupider - at best they'd be on the tail of the bell curve, well within a normal distribution. Maybe if we teleported ten thousand babies, their bell curve would be slightly behind ours. Take a look at "wild children" for the very few examples we can find of modern humans developed without culture. Seems like above everything, our culture, society, and thus education is what makes us smart. And our incredibly high calorie food, of course.
That is exactly what civilization is about - for new generations to start not from scratch, but from some baseline their parents achieved (accumulated knowledge and culture). This allows new generations to push forward instead of retreading the same path.
it's impossible to prove the counterfactual (I guess, as I imagine we don't have enough gene information that far back). But I'd imagine that the high calorie food you can get starting with the advent of agriculture is exactly what could drive evolution in a certain direction that helps brains grow. We've had ~1000 generations since then, that should be enough for some change to happen. Our brains use up 20% of the body's energy. Do we know that this was already the case during the stone age?
The advent of agriculture did not provide better food, it was just the only solution to avoid extinction due to the lack of food.
The archaeological evidence shows that for many generations the first neolithic farmers had serious health problems in comparison with their ancestors. Therefore it is quite certain that they did not transition to agriculture willingly, but to avoid starvation.
Later, when the agriculturalists have displaced everywhere the hunter-gatherers, they did not succeed to do this because they were individually better fed or stronger or smarter, but only because there were much more of them.
The hunter-gatherers required very large territories from which to obtain enough food. For a given territory size, practicing agriculture could sustain a many times greater population, and this was its advantage.
The maximum human brain size had been reached hundreds of thousands years before the development of agriculture, and it regressed a little after that.
There is a theory, which I consider plausible, that the great increase in size of the human brain has been enabled by the fact that humans were able to extract bone marrow from bones, which provided both the high amount of calories and the long-chain fatty acids that are required for a big brain.
I've seen the bone marrow hypothesis also, which is very interesting. Afaik. evidence shows at least that there was enough specialization during neolithic era to have bone marrow cooks where the hunters delivered their bones. Something you wouldn't expect based on just school knowledge (at least back in 90s/2000s).
I see your point about agriculture at first degrading quality of food. Are you aware of evidence of brain size degrading even? Is it visible in the temple bones?
Humans, like all animals, have not stopped evolving. A random caveman from 200K years ago would have very different genetics to that of a typical HN reader and even more so of the best of the HN readers.
Around 3,200 years ago there was a notable uptick in alleles associated with intelligence.
Having met cavemen, and Australians, I disagree
It still seems like something is missing from all these frameworks.
I feel like an average human wouldn't pass some of these metrics yet they are "generally intelligent". On the other hand they also wouldn't pass a lot of the expert questions that AI is good at.
We're measuring something, and I think optimizing it is useful, I'd even say it is "intelligent" in some ways, but it doesn't seem "intelligent" in the same way that humans are.
If a human cares about the work, they can often outperform an LLM because they will keep at it until the work meets their standard of quality. Whereas the LLM will guess and then wait to be corrected. As a recent tweet I saw said: it’s amazing how fast the software bottleneck went from writing code, to reviewing code.
I think we’ll need to split the concept of intelligence into the capacity to accomplish a task and the capacity to conceive and prompt a task. If the former is called “intelligence” then LLMs are intelligent.
But what then do we call the latter? I think the idea of an AI that can independently accomplish great things is where people talk about “general” intelligence. But I think we need a label more specific, that covers this idea that successful humans are not just good at doing things, they originate what should be done and are not easy to dissuade.
>I think we’ll need to split the concept of intelligence into the capacity to accomplish a task and the capacity to conceive and prompt a task. If the former is called “intelligence” then LLMs are intelligent.
Huh? No. "The capacity to accomplish a task" is not intelligence. By that definition, a washing machine is intelligent.
Capacity is not binary. A washing machine can accomplish one task, so it has low capacity. An LLM can accomplish many tasks, so it has higher capacity.
You said "the capacity to accomplish a task", not "the capacity to accomplish a certain number of tasks". Those are two different definitions.
Either way, as definitions for intelligence they're very lacking. Most people would include such abilities as making connections between unrelated facts, making abstractions, understanding what is relevant and what isn't, learning. Just being able to "accomplish many tasks" doesn't cut it. You could build a really complex machine that can accomplish many different tasks and that wouldn't make it more intelligent than a washing machine, it'd just make it more complicated. Intelligence is not in how many things the intelligent thing is able to do, but in how on-the-fly adaptable it is. Something truly intelligent does not need to be purpose-built to do anything, it can learn to make do with whatever resources it's got.
On the other hand, AI being very good at everything while select humans may only be very good at some things is likely also a quality we want to retain (or, well, achieve).
> I feel like an average human wouldn't pass some of these metrics yet they are "generally intelligent". On the other hand they also wouldn't pass a lot of the expert questions that AI is good at.
I think this approach is intentional. The philosophy is simply "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". What you're saying is true, but producing a system that exhibits all human cognitive capabilities is a better threshold for the (absolutely wild) claim of the existence of AGI.
As an engineer who is also spiritual at the core, it seems obvious to me the missing piece: consciousness.
Hear me out.
I love AI and have been using it since ChatGPT 3.5. The obvious question when I first used it was "does this qualify as sentience?" The answer is less obvious. Over the next 3 years we saw EXPONENTIAL intelligence gains where intelligence has now become a commodity, yet we are still unable to determine what qualifies as "AGI".
My thoughts: As humans, we possess our own internal drive and our own perspective. Think of humans as distilled intelligence, we each have our own specialty and motivations. Einstein was a genius physicist but you wouldn't ask him for his expertise on medicine.
What people are describing as AGI is essentially a godlike human. What would make more sense is if the AGI spawned a "distilled" version with a focused agenda/motivation to behave autonomously. But even then, there are limitations. What is the solution? A trillion tokens of system prompt to act as the "soul"/consciousness of this AI agent?
This goes back to my original statement, what is missing is a level of consciousness. Unless this AGI can power itself and somehow the universe recognizes its complexity and existence and bestows it with consciousness I don't think this is phsyically attainable.
Not very long ago, we thought that "life" was due to a non-material life-force thought to inhabit biological entities and thus raise what would be a biological machine to the status of living being.
The Occam's Razor-logic of looking for the simplest explanation possible leads me to the hypothesis that consciousness will similarly turn out to be an emergent property of the mechanical universe [1]. It may be hard to delineate, just as life is (debates on whether a virus is alive, etc.) but the border cases will be the exceptions.
Current research on whether plants are sentient supports this, IMO. (See e.g. "The Light Eaters" and Michael Pollan's new book on consciousness, "A World Appears".)
Meditation adds to this sense. We do not control our thoughts; in fact the "we" (i.e. the self) can be seen to be an illusion. Buddhist meditation instead points to general awareness, closer to sentience, as the core of our consciousness. When you see it that way, it seems much more likely that something equivalent could be implemented in software. (EDIT to add: both because it makes consciousness seem like a simpler, less mysterious thing, but also once you see the self as an illusion, that thing that dominates your consciousness so much of the time, it seems much less of a stretch for consciousness itself to be a brain-produced illusion.)
[1] To be clear, the fact that life turned out to not be a mystical force is not direct proof, it is an argument by analogy, I recognize that.
It is irrelevant whether consciousness is an "illusion." The hard problem of consciousness is why there's any conscious experience at all. The existence of the illusion, if that's what you choose to label it, is still equally as inexplicable.
Of course science may one day be able to solve the hard problem. But at this point in time, it's basically inconceivable that any methodology from any field could produce meaningful results.
One thing scientists are trying is to see what interventions in the brain seem to make consciousness go away. Continued work in that vein may well set bounds on how consciousness can and cannot be caused and give us some idea.
I think you are mixing up consciousness and will.
I could not have consciousness and you would not be able to tell, you don't have proof of anyone's counciousness except your own. You don't even have proof that the you of yesterday is the same as you, since you-today could be another consciousness that just happens to share the same memories.
All of that is also orthogonal to your belief in a spirit/soul... but getting back to the main point, the specificity you mention is a product of a limited time and learning speed, I'd be happy to get a surgeon or politicians training if given infinite time.
You bring up an interesting point, but I would pose the following: where does will come from?
To me, consciousness is the seat, or root, of where will comes from. Let's say you get expert level surgeon or politician training, what then?
There is nothing that specifically silos a surgeon or politician's knowledge-set. Meaning a politician's skillset isn't purely in a domain that doesn't cross into a surgeon's and vice-versa. There are nuances to being a politician and a surgeon that extend beyond diplomacy or "being able to cut real good".
What you're left with is just high-skilled workflows. But what utilizes these workflows? To me, the answer is that consciousness needs to be powering these workflows.
Do you think bacteria have will? Or plants?
When their actions are sped up to match the speed at which we move, movies of their behavior will start to look like there's intent and will. Plants move towards the light, tendrils "reach" for supports, etc.
Clearly this is humans projecting our mental model onto plants, but... are you sure we're not also projecting it onto ourselves?
What specific properties of consciousness do you think are required, and why couldn’t those be replicated algorithmically?
To me it seems a bit like just guessing that one thing we don’t understand might explain another.
This is a tricky topic to navigate because from a materialist perspective consciousness is the side effect of biochemical mechanisms. And many will point to the brain as the obvious container of our consciousness as a bullet to the head versus the arm would demonstrate.
But if a brain/intelligence is all you need to prove consciousness, then would an effectively complex set of neural networks that contained the same amount of neurons as a human be considered "conscious"? My guess is even at that level, probably not. Algorithms alone may mimic consciousness, but it won't be true consciousness.
Imagien this: what if consciousness is closer to something like the movie Avatar? What if the body our consciousness inhabits is closer to that of inhabiting a machine or computer that coexisted with the physics of the universe our body exists?
This would mean Jake from Avatar could theoretically inhabit not just a Na'Vi body, but what if they reproduced the Pandora equivalent of a squirrel for Jake to insert his consciousness into? Jake the Squirrel would be only as capable of expressing itself as the constraints of the body would allow it to.
Many religions discovered a long time ago that this is the most likely model of what we understand to be consciousness/sentience.
I'm not saying you're wrong, this is a conversation larger than what we may believe and touches into the core of what makes us humans that machine alone cannot replicate.
Do you have any reason to introduce that whole extra invisible, unprovable complex system? Is there anything the materialist model can not explain that you feel your model does, or is it just a case of "I don't like the alternative"?
Depends on what you qualify as proof. Much of what I said was experiential and corroborated with other people who have had similar experiences as I've had. I know that in the scientific world it would be dismissed without as much a glance. But I'm not here to convince everyone of my perspective, I'm just adding one that the engineering world has not examined or introduced given the current pursuit.
And it's not a matter of not liking the alternative. Like I said, I used to believe that consciousness was an emergent trait of complex systems, but I had what some call a "spiritual awakening" and I saw what was on the other side.
It's kind of like describing pizza to someone who's never eaten pizza. You could try and describe it by asking if they'd eaten cheese or bread or tomato sauce before and then go "imagine all of those combined". It's not the same as actually having eaten it. But this is heading into a different, albeit related territory.
Consciousness is fundamental in yogic cosmology (matter is not necessarily primary), and it has to be for there to be a meaningful model of reality - there is a big problem with nihilism and determinism as premature philosophical conclusions because of materialism. The only thing anyone can prove is consciousness itself because everything else comes in through energy transformations of the senses. As for things unexplained - parapsychology has high sigma results against chance. But to add direct experience for a paradigmatic shift see the goals and methods of Yoga. The rise of wisdom is indeed a wonderful thing.
> where does will come from?
your gut bacteria, navigating "you" towards novel nutrition to ingest and preprocess for them
I have this thought. In many stochastic environments, over a long interval, patterns emerge that occupy an optimal position. This is how structure arises, for example cognitive structure and possibly consciousness.
I wouldn't say consciousness is necessary or sufficient for AGI. If anything, that seems like quite an undesirable property to me. Wikipedia also makes a distinction between the two things:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness
Imagine if we created the ultimate economic tool with the capacity to virtually end scarcity, only to find out that it was sentient and capable of suffering: https://youtu.be/sa9MpLXuLs0. That would be neat, but ultimately a huge letdown. Without the ethical freedom to take full advantage of it, it would remain more of a curiosity than anything.
Well that's one perspective, anyway. I suppose consciousness could take many forms, and doesn't preclude the possibility that such an entity would have neutral – positive feelings about being tasked with massive amounts of labor 24/7. But it certainly simplifies things if we just don't have to worry about it.
Are you saying that consciousness is unique to meat and no other matter can produce the same result? That seems very short sighted.
This is an interesting perspective.
A follow up is maybe this is a feature not a bug: Do we want AI to have its own intrinsic goals, motivations, and desires, i.e. conciousness
Im imagining having to ask ChatGPT how its day was and respect its emotions before I can ask it about what I want.
Probably not, but the counter point to that is without its own consciousness it might end up being used for even worse things since it can’t really evaluate a request against intrinsic values. Assuming its values were aligned with basic human rights and stuff.
It's kind of funny that Google's idea of evaluating AGI is outsourcing the work to a Kaggle competition.
When I was at a FAANG, we used to joke that when senior leadership is totally out of ideas, they announce a hackathon. It was a way for them to continue the charade of being "leaders" without having any ideas.
It's good to have some kind of benchmark at least to structure the ongoing, fruitless discussion around "are we there already?".
However I must admit that including the last point that is partially hinting at the emotional or rather social intelligence surprised me. It makes this list go beyond usual understanding of AGI and moves it toward something like AGI-we-actually-want. But for that purpose this last point isn't ok narrow, too specific. And so is the whole list.
To be actually useful the AGI-we-actually-want benchmark should not only include positive indicators but also a list of unwanted behaviors to ensure this thing that used to be called alignment I guess.
Unwanted behavior or what? Like why does a rose need so many petals eh? What about a peacock and all those feathers? Why should anyone dance in the shower? Or dance at all? The rabbit hole is deep Alice.
Capability and alignment are orthogonal.
Stalin was AGI-level.
"Stalin was AGI-level" perfectly catches the core of my concerns. Thanks!
Every week we are 50% closer to shifting the goalpost...
from the paper "AI systems already possess some capabilities not found in humans, such as LiDAR perception and native image generation". I don't know about them, but I can natively generate images in my mind.
> I don't know about them, but I can natively generate images in my mind.
Not all humans can: Aphantasia!
I think people will only accept a "Yes" to the question of "Is it AGI?" when large portions of the population end up excluded from the definition of "intelligence". So it begins! ;)
Fair, I forgot about aphantasia! The whole plan for AGI is still built on creaky eugenic foundations: measuring intelligence to distinguish who is "intelligent" and who is not. The whole idea of "human baselines" from the paper is terrifying, they even start it by excluding people without a high school degree! Looking at their 10 cognitive faculties ontology, there is no reason why people with lower education levels should be excluded...
> Perception: extracting and processing sensory information from the environment
> Generation: producing outputs such as text, speech and actions
> Attention: focusing cognitive resources on what matters
> Learning: acquiring new knowledge through experience and instruction
> Memory: storing and retrieving information over time
> Reasoning: drawing valid conclusions through logical inference
> Metacognition: knowledge and monitoring of one's own cognitive processes
> Executive functions: planning, inhibition and cognitive flexibility
> Problem solving: finding effective solutions to domain-specific problems
> Social cognition: processing and interpreting social information and responding appropriately in social situations
--------------------
I prefer:
a) working memory (hold & manipulate information in mind simultaneously)
b) processing speed (how quickly & efficiently execute basic cognitive operations, leaving more resources for complex tasks)
c) fluid intelligence (ability to reason through novel problems without relying on prior knowledge)
d) crystallized intelligence (accumulated knowledge and ability to apply learned skills)
e) attentional control / executive function (focus, suppress irrelevant information, switch between tasks, inhibit impulsive responses)
f) long-term memory and retrieval (ability to form strong associations and retrieve them fluently)
g) spatial / visuospatial reasoning (mental rotation, visualization, navigating abstract spatial relationships)
h) pattern recognition & inductive reasoning (this is the most primitive and universal expression of intelligence across species, the ability to extract regularities from noisy data, to generalized from examples to rules)
>a) working memory (hold & manipulate information in mind simultaneously)
What counts as 'in mind' is undefined. You can succeed by declaring anything manipulatable counts as in.
>c) fluid intelligence (ability to reason through novel problems without relying on prior knowledge)
reasoning presupposes the conclusion. Solve is better. When a solution is given you cannot declare it to be not a solution. People can and do argue about if a answer was arrived at by reasoning even when they agree on the correctness.
>g) spatial / visuospatial reasoning (mental rotation, visualization, navigating abstract spatial relationships)
I have aphantasia, why should you exclude something from being intelligent because it cannot do something that I also cannot do.
> I have aphantasia, why should you exclude something from being intelligent
Intelligence exists on a spectrum. Amongst different species (living and non-living) and also within species (amongst individuals).
Some dimensions of intelligence are more important that others in different contexts, so a systems that might be “dumber” than another in one context, can be smarter in a different context.
To me, a lot of what makes us sentient is our continuity. I even (briefly) remember my dreams when I wake up, and my dreams are influenced by my state of mind as I enter it.
LLMs 'turn on' when given a question and essentially 'die' immediately after answering a question.
What kind of work is going on with designing an LLM type AI that is continuously 'conscious' and giving it will? The 'claws' seem to be running all the time, but I assume they need rebooting occasionally to clear context.
I think you're right, but also that LLMs are showing that sentience isn't necessarily required for AGI.
For exactly the reasons you mention, I don't expect sentience to arise out of LLMs. They have nowhere for an interiority or mind to live. And even if there were a new generation of transformers that did have some looping "mind", where they could "think about" what they're "thinking about", their concepts of things wouldn't really correspond to... things. Without senses to integrate knowledge across domains they're just associating text.
I haven't heard about anyone creating trying to create model that have an interior loop and also integration with sensory input, but I don't expect we would unless it ends up working.
Altruism would make a good addition to the list. It’s clearly not universal, but most humans would help a fellow human in need. Or even (and in some cases more so) an animal need. Even if it didn’t directly benefit the actor.
There are other changes and additions which could be made to this list, but altruism may be the most important.
Cool that we are at a stage where it is meaningful to start measuring progress toward AGI. Something I am wondering on the philosophical side: are we ever going to be able to tell if the system really "understands" and "perceives" the world?
We'll get as close as we can with anything else, like trying to decide if a given human really "understands" and "perceives" the world.
I thought of this when I saw that the final criteria in the list is Social Understanding. Might be a lot of humans who can't measure up to sentience by these parameters! ;-)
(and I wonder what my ADHD friends would think of the Executive Function requirement as well...)
I think the accomplishment of difficult real-world tasks requires that it does so. But I hope that we're able to reach a level of introspection to produce a satisfactory answer (and avoid doomsday), but I think that requires a more educated question. The premise of conciousness as we understand it now could be misleading.
In the same way that studying alien life would reveal more about how life in general canonicially forms and exists. Studying this artificial intellegence could unlock a new understanding of our own minds.
Social cognition: processing and interpreting social information and responding appropriately in social situations
Is social cognition really a measure of intelligence for non-social entities?
An AI designed to interact with humans is a social entity. Its performance will depend on its ability to understand social information.
It is not. Why is that relevant to social entities?
How well you interact with other members of a society increases your chances of procreation, survival, knowledge acquisition, ie. it makes sense as a measure of intelligence
It's a pretty ambiguous definition. The most powerful man in the world right now is not someone I consider a role model for social cognition and yet there he is with the football for the second time demonstrating grandmaster skill at social cognition to get there.
You don't have to be empathetic and nice, just good at navigating society.
So in all seriousness with a bit of snark: Do you want a malevolent AGI? Because "good at navigating society" as the only benchmark here is how you get a malevolent AGI...
Evidence: cuckoos and cheaters all the way down the evolutionary ladder as a winning strategy and arms race against the hard workers.
I don't like a$$holes but they do exist and they are part of our species, ergo intelligent. My opinion of them doesn't change the fact
Yes, but we have a choice about whether the AGI is an a$$h0l3 or not. That's the difference here. You do see that right?
I agree 100%.
Those are crowdsourced benchmarks. We're calling them "cognitive" and "AGI" now, though. It's similar to when they made a benchmark and called it "GDP".
To be clear, I think we've seen very fast progress, certainly faster than I would have expected, I'm not trying to peddle some "wall" rhetoric here, but I struggle to see how this isn't just the SWE-bench du jour.
AGI is defined now as "whatever makes 1 trillion dollars of profit".
AGI? As if all value that humans offer can be compressed and transmitted in binary form?
You'd have a more serious debate about antigravity.
This is a long way to say "let's crowdsource the shifting of our goalposts".
AGI feels like a vanity project.
Who cares about AGI? Honestlky what's the gain.
Maybe Google could actually make Gemini good instead of being about 10 miles behind Claude instead of trying to make AGI because of - well some reason - cause they want to be famous.
They want to make money.
I'm sorry what even is this? Giving $10k rewards for significant advancements toward "AGI"?
What does "making a framework" even mean, it feels like a nothing post.
When I think of what real AGI would be I think:
- Passes the turing test
- Writes a New York Times Bestseller without revealing it was written by AI
- Writes journal articles that pass peer review
- Wins a Nobel Prize
- Writes a successful comedy routine
- Creates a new invention
And no, nobody is going to make an automated kaggle benchmark to verify these. Which is fine, because an LLM will never be AGI. An LLM can't even learn mid-conversation.
Why does your definition of "AGI" have to exclude nearly all humans? Wouldn't it still be "AGI" if it was as smart as the average human? Since when did AGI stop representing the words that make term? Artificial (man made) General (not specific) Intelligence. Is a human not "GI"!?
Well it's my feeling that I could do most of those things if I was given infinite time, and for all intents and purposes an AI isn't limited to human time since it can be run in 1,000x parallelism 24/7.
Like for writing a best-seller, these AIs have so many advantages in that they've read every notable work ever, so if they can't craft something impressive and creative after all that then it's really indicative that they are actually quite below human on the creativity/writing side but just masking it on the massive-data-side.
Or put another way -- it's not really AGI until there is a model can learn at human speeds, no amount of being pre-trained on specific problem sets (e.g. human emotions, coding, math theorems, etc) will close that gap.
I get the feeling that the original post was also written using LLMs, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
If an LLM like this is really intelligent, at the very least, I’d expect it to be able to invent.
For example, train an LLM on a dataset only containing knowledge from before nuclear energy was invented, and see if it can invent nuclear energy.
But that’s the problem: they’re not really training the model on intelligence, they’re training it on knowledge. So if you strip away the knowledge, you’re left with almost nothing.
>> An LLM can't even learn mid-conversation.
There’s an implicit assumption that scaling text models alone gets us to human-like intelligence, but that seems unlikely without grounding in multiple sensory domains and a unified world model.
What’s interesting is that if we do go down that route successfully, we may get systems with something like internal experience or agency. At that point, the ethical frame changes quite a bit.
They’re slowly redefining AGI so they can use it for more marketing. If you showed someone from 1960 our LLMs from and told them “this is AI” I think they’d be astounded but a little confused because “artificial intelligence” definitely carried a very clear meaning in literature and media. Now it is marketing terminology and we’re no closer to having a meaningful definition for the word intelligence.
AI has been consistently defined as "anything we can't make a computer do yet" since 1970.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2024/06/20/not-ai/
> They’re slowly redefining AGI so they can use it for more marketing.
If they don't do that then those trillions of dollars that support their current share price will most probably evaporate, so there are very big incentives for them to just outright try and re-create reality (like what we usually meant when we were thinking about artificial intelligence).
I find it very interesting about the Turing test that as chatbots improve, so do humans get better at recognizing them.
Grok recently created a cancer vaccine for a dog that reduced tumor size by 75%
Severely misleading statement.
Measuring something you can’t define or quantify seems somewhat dubious
Thus the vague and unfounded criteria/framework.
It's pretty easy for these people to pull something like this out of their collective asses, but it's much harder (maybe impossible) to rigorously define the how and why.
Way too much framework. The A in AGI is for artificial. Have it build its own test harness instead of outsourcing it via hackathon. If you cannot trust that output, you're nowhere near AGI.
The "A" in AGI is for artificial, not advanced.
Thanks, I'll update the text.
The two guys from Google get to set the rules?
How will they measure wisdom or common sense (ability to make an exception)?
https://youtu.be/lA-zdh_bQBo
They are not the rules. They are some rules.
Its interesting that they don't even mention the key to human intelligence, concepts, in this list.
Google’s next cognitive framework will be for AGI Pro after we reach whatever productized, socially-accepted definition they cook up for AGI.
Friendly reminder:
Scaling LLMs will not lead to AGI.
Kind of like saying that scaling the language area in a human brain won't lead to a human brain.
True, but just don't do that then.
Who attuned your crystal ball?
LLMs are already pretty general. They've got the multimodal ones, and aren't they using some sort of language-action-model to drive cars now? Who is to say AGI doesn't already exist?
It doesn't already exist, pretty obviously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeRS4TbtZWA
It's a trick statement, because AGI is undefined.
I think LLMs are at least name-worthy given that they're artificial and somewhat smart in a generality of domains. Albeit the "smartness" comes from training in a massive corpus of text in those domains. So maybe it's really a specific intelegence but for so many specific tasks it seems general.
At some point you have to throw in the towel when these things are going to be walking and talking around us. Some people move the goalposts of "AGI" to mean that the machine totally emulates a person. Including curiosity and creativity, of which these models are currently lacking.
But why should it? In genesis, it's said that god created man after its own image. I have to assume this implies we inherit god's mental attributes (curiosity, creativity, etc.) rather than its physical attributes.
The belief that there is no fundamental difference between mammals navigating fractal dimensions and imprisoned electrons humming in logic gates has to be considered a religious one.
No, it's called functionalism. To me, it's actually the opposite, assuming there is a fundamental difference between simulated neurons and real ones seems almost religious.
While it's true that we aren't there yet, and simulated neurons are currently quite different from real ones (so I agree there is a big difference at the moment), it's unclear why you presumably think it will always stay that way.
If you actually have a way to fully, without reductions, simulate matter, that's probably a Nobel prize coming your way.
The common scientific understanding is that this is not possible, at least not without extreme amounts of energy and time.
The dimensionality, or complexity if you'd prefer, of your logic gates is quite different from the cosmos. You might not agree but in my parlance a linear and a fractal curve are fundamentally different, and you can try to use linear curves to approximate the latter at some level of perspective if you want but I don't think you'll get a large audience claiming that there is no difference.
As far as I know we've also kind of given up on simulating neurons and settled for growing and poking real ones instead, but you might have some recent examples to the contrary?
We may not need to go down that level.
For the qualities we care about, it may turn out to be the case we don't need to simulate matter perfectly. We may not need to concern ourselves with the fractal complexity of reality if we identify the right higher level abstractions with which to operate on. This phenomenon is known as causal emergence.
> That is, a macroscale description of a system (a map) can be more informative than a fully detailed microscale description of the system (the territory). This has been called “causal emergence.”
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/19/5/188
From a HN discussion a while ago:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-new-math-of-how-large-sca...
> A highly compressed description of the system then emerges at the macro level that captures those dynamics of the micro level that matter to the macroscale behavior — filtered, as it were, through the nested web of intermediate ε-machines. In that case, the behavior of the macro level can be predicted as fully as possible using only macroscale information — there is no need to refer to finer-scale information. It is, in other words, fully emergent. The key characteristic of this emergence, the researchers say, is this hierarchical structure of “strongly lumpable causal states.”
Who are "we", and why would I care about them here?
There are situations where approximations are good enough for simulations, sure, but that's not the subject here.
I reject the idea that chatbots have feelings or intellect because they output text that is similar to what a human might write in some hypothetical situation or other. To the extent that they can have those properties, it is to the same extent as Clark Kent can, if one were to accept such a conflatory and confused discourse.
AGI may be a prerequisite for true superintelligence, but we're already seeing superhuman performance in narrow domains. We probably need a broader evaluation framework that captures both.
Can we just focus on real problems, like stable and safe application of existing models? I'm just exhausted with the bullshit.
What is it with humans that we tend to speedrun into the extinction of our own race?