zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
Nothing makes me think of Altman as a grifter more than his trying to spook uneducated lawmakers with sci-fi notions like "superintelligence" for which there are no plausible mechanisms or natural analogues, and for which the solution is to lobby government build a moat around his business and limit his competitors. We do not even have a consensus around a working definition of "intelligence", let alone any evidence that it is a linear or unbounded phenomenon, and even if it were, there is no evidence ChatGPT is a route to even human-level intelligence. The sum total of research into this "field" is a series of long chains of philosophical leaps that rapidly escape any connection to reality, which is no basis for a wide-ranging government intervention.

>>lsy+c9
>and even if it were, there is no evidence ChatGPT is a route to even human-level intelligence.

People who say this nonsense need to start properly defining human level intelligence because nearly anything you throw at GPT-4 it performs at at least average human level, often well above.

Give criteria that 4 fails that a significant chunk of the human population doesn't also fail and we can talk.

Else this is just another instance of people struggling to see what's right in front of them.

Just blows my mind the lengths some will go to ignore what is already easily verifiable right now. "I'll know agi when i see it", my ass.

>>famous+sc
> People who say this nonsense need to start properly defining human level intelligence because nearly anything you throw at GPT-4 it performs at at least average human level, often well above.

"Average human level" is pretty boring though. Computers have been doing arithmetic at well above "average human level" since they were first invented. The premise of AGI isn't that it can do something better than people, it's that it can do everything at least as well. Which is clearly still not the case.

>>Anthon+Vk
>"Average human level" is pretty boring though.

Lol ok. Still human level. and GPT-4 is way above average in most tasks.

>Computers have been doing arithmetic at well above "average human level" since they were first invented.

Cool. That's what the general in agi is about. GPT-4 is very general.

>The premise of AGI isn't that it can do something better than people, it's that it can do everything at least as well.

as well as what kind of people ? experts ? That was not the premise of agi when the term was coined or for a long time afterwards. Posts have shifted(as they often do in this field) so that that's what the term seems to mean now but agi was artificial and generally intelligent, which has been passed.

There's no difference between your definition of agi which is supposed to surpass experts in every field and super intelligence.

>>famous+3n
> Lol ok. Still human level. and GPT-4 is way above average in most tasks.

It has access to a lot of information that most humans don't have memorized. It's a better search engine than most humans. And it can format that information into natural language.

But can it drive a car? If given an incentive to not confabulate and the knowledge that its statements are being verified, can it achieve that as consistently as the median human?

If you start by giving it a simple instruction with stark consequences for not following it, can it continue to register the importance of that instruction even after you give it a lot more text to read?

> as well as what kind of people ? experts ?

Experts are just ordinary people with specific information. You're giving the specific information to the AI, aren't you? It's in the training data.

> There's no difference between your definition of agi which is supposed to surpass experts in every field and super intelligence.

That's because there is no difference between them. Super intelligence is achievable just by making general intelligence faster. If you have AGI and can make it go faster by throwing more compute hardware at it then you have super intelligence.