Exactly what I said: AGI is not enough. We need SUPER-AGI. But that will also not be enough. We will need SUPER-DUPER-AGI. And so on until the effect of the drugs wear off and we calm down from the hallucinations.
On Sunday, 22 December 2024 at 15:28:59 UTC+2 John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Dec 22, 2024 at 3:30 AM PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > > *> While it’s true that scaling a model’s compute often improves >> performance—e.g., O3 going from 75.7% to 87.5%—that alone doesn’t prove >> that we’ve achieved “fundamental AGI.”* > > > *Francois Chollet is the man who invented the ARC test and he did > everything he could think of to make his test as difficult as possible for > a large language model. Back in the olden days of late 2023 when the best > AIs only got scores in the single digits on the ARC test, Chollet said that > if a machine ever got higher than 75% on his test then it should be > considered an AGI. But when a machine did exactly that he immediately moved > the goal post to some vague unspecified spot. * > > *And it's not just the ARC test, ALL the previous benchmarks that were > supposed to determine when AGI has arrived are no longer of any use because > they've all been maxed out. We need new more difficult benchmarks, not to > compare AIs to humans because to my mind that debate is over, but in order > to compare one AGI to another AGI.* > > >> >> *> In machine learning history, many benchmarks have been surpassed by >> throwing more resources at them, yet models often fail when faced with >> novel tasks.* > > > *Long before O3 came out it was obvious that computers were getting much > better at being good at generalize tasks for example, back in the stone age > of 2017 starting with zero knowledge and with just a few hours of self > study, AlphaZero, could become good enough to beat the most talented human > at chess and GO and shogi and ANY two player zero sum game. * > > > >> *> **I’ve personally seen kids under age ten handle about 80 to upwards >> of 90% of the daily “play” tasks (besides acing the 6 problems on the >> landing page) on the ARC site once they grasp the basic rule of finding the >> rule,* > > > > *Once they grasp the basic rule of finding the rule yes. The first and > probably the most difficult step very young children have in taking the ARC > test is figuring out what question the ARC test is asking, only after they > understand the question can children start thinking about an answer. And > the more they play the ARC test the better they get at it. Exactly the same > thing could be said about O3. * > > >> *> As for the claim that François Chollet “moved the goalpost” once AI >> systems approached the 75% mark, it’s common in AI research for benchmarks >> to evolve precisely because scoring high on an older test doesn’t >> necessarily reflect deep, generalizable reasoning.* > > > *Alan Turing originally said that if you were only communicating over a > teletype machine and a computer could convince you that you were > communicating with another human being then that computer should be > considered as intelligent as a human being. Computers blew past that > benchmark about two years ago. * > > *Douglas Hofstadter, the author of my all-time favorite book Godel Escher > Bach, said that if a computer could beat a Chess grandmaster then it would > be intelligent, but he didn't expect that to happen in his lifetime. > However it happened in 1997. Hofstadter now thinks computers are genuinely > intelligent, and he's very frightened. * > > *Then people said Chess was not a good benchmark but the game of GO was > because it was astronomically more complicated than Chess, but a computer > beat the best human GO player in 2016.* > > *Then people said that for a computer to be an AGI it would need to be as > good as most people at most things. And I think we're already there.* > > *Then people said for a computer to be an AGI it would need to be better > than EVERY human being at EVERYTHING, but that's not Artificial General > Intelligence, that's Artificial Superintelligence. And we're almost there. * > > > > > > > *The pattern is always the same.A computer will never be able to do X.And > then a computer does X.Well OK but a computer will never be able to do > Y.And then a computer does Y.And then it's obvious they will soon run out > of letters of the alphabet. * > > *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* > 5n3 > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/202fb555-2f00-4480-bdb2-5d06560ebe1cn%40googlegroups.com.
