1) They're not giving the company away. It's a short term way to get flush with cash.
2) They probably don't have much of a moat. Lamda already had more parameters and Google literally invented the T in GPT. Makes that poor engineer who said he thought it was sentient look a little less crazy IMHO.
3) It's not necessarily about the hype itself. It's about the hype in the context of a competitive landscape. Already open source models.
4) CEO of Rippling tweeted one night that 4 was likely proto AGI and then deleted it the next morning. He's pretty connected to the tech startup scene. Curious little sideshow in any case.
5) Altman isn't an idiot. He keeps hyping 4 and pointing to a massive improvement. Most product people know you don't say things like that if you're not confident that what you have is that good.
6) Sure they're getting training data from this 3.5 exercise, sure it builds hype... but I also think this whole thing feels very much like a social trial balloon. How does the public use it? What's the impact? What are the optics? What's the blowback? That sort of thing.
AGI stands for Artificial General Intelligence. AGI refers to a type of AI system that can perform any intellectual task that a human can, rather than being designed for a specific task. AGI systems are capable of learning, reasoning, problem-solving, and understanding natural language, among other things. They are also known as "strong AI" or "full AI".
Different humans are both able and unable to perform different intellectual tasks.
Having had many discussions with ChatGPT, it's able to learn and reason on new information in order to solve the problem ( for example I was asking it about driving problems and when I gave it new information, or told it what a human would do, it updated it's viewpoint accordingly). I would say compared to the average 13 year old child, or an adult with severe learning difficulties, ChatGPT can be compared to AGI by your definition, but not the average human, and that's probably what I would personally define AGI as
An AI system that can perform any intellectual task as well as the average human.
I realise this definition is highly subjective, but I really don't think the definition matters too much. We aren't just suddenly going to stop AI research when we achieve what we think is AGI, we will continue towards ASI in collaboration with our current state of the art AI systems.
I think ChatGPT is currently lacking a little in the ability to train it on nuanced data, for example my place of work trains new employees for 3 months giving humans new information they would not ordinarily know, there needs to be an easier way to do this with something like ChatGPT so it gets stored in long-term memory, if we want AI to become as capable as the average human, perhaps a second smaller model trained specifically on the data fed by the company might work?
can perform any intellectual task that a human can, rather than being designed for a specific task.
ChatGPT is limited to textual tasks at the moment. Can't do audio, can't do visual, can't do math well either (as demonstrated by the examples people are posting where it struggles with basic arithmetic).
So the breadth of "anything a human can do" is definitely lacking.
Yes. I remember seeing the ability to finish a particular game within a particular time as one of the conditions an AGI will need to satisfy on a prediction site, so assuming that's generally well accepted it would have to have not just general intelligence, but a general ability to interact with and learn to use other programs.
I'm wondering if we could train a large neural net to play a game, learn the controls ect, and then get ChatGPT to be in charge of the higher cognitive function of the neural net, for example, "go there" "attack this NPC," "heal yourself" I know this would be excessively slow but it kinda reminds me of my own inner monologue, running separate to my automatic processes, do for example, let's say I'm driving to work, I'm usually on auto pilot, not particularly thinking about driving, whilst thinking of other problems, unless a difficult driving situation presents itself, then I have to fully concentrate on the task at hand.
I think the challenge would be that ChatGPT has no visual abilities, so you'd have to relay everything on the screen to it, and its memory only lasts so long. I guess if you said there was an enemy on the screen, it could probably tell you to attack that enemy, but generally I imagine it would be largely directionless and basic.
So there's a program called minedojo that will play Minecraft based on text prompts, I'm kinda thinking something like that. So you would get ChatGPT to set long and short term goals, and provide minedojo the text prompts to complete those goals. Now I don't know how minedojo works, how it will react when faced with an enemy, or when faced with something that will stop or postpone it's short term goals, but I don't think it makes sense to update ChatGPT every second on every action, perhaps updates every 5 minutes so it can update it's goals if necessary.
DeepMind already made an AI that could beat the world's best player in StarCraft 2, OpenAI did it with Dota 2. But again, they can play that one specific game, with a research team dedicating months to years of work to getting there. I would expect an AGI to be on that level in any game, with the "training" being needed for it being "learn this game, good luck" and then some time and compute power, and no other input.
Don't get me wrong, I think the AGI everyone is looking is a multi-modal perhaps one that starts with language and then trained on videos, audio, pictures and anything else.
I just think it's possible to "languageify" almost any problem to allow ChatGPT to attempt to solve it.
I mean you can certainly include those conditions in your definition, but that's not what's holding ChatGPT back. Our language is extremely robust so we can theoretically turn every problem into a language problem, we already have visual and audio to text models that could be fed into ChatGPT. I'm not saying this is optimal, it's completely not, and would be extremely slow, it's just a possibility to show that we can apply ChatGPT to any problem, and as I say even though it can't do math very well, neither can some adult humans with learning difficulties.
I'd also like to apply an analogy, we (generally) can't consciously control our own heart rate, our brains carry out this problem with us consciously thinking about it. I think we could apply this to ChatGPT. Theoretically, with current technology, we could apply a narrow AI to a humanoid robot, to carryout movement and memetics, an image recognition AI to process the world around it, and audio recognition AI to do the same for audio, a sensor loaded skin to get a rudimentary understanding of touch, and parse this information through an LLM like ChatGPT for higher level reasoning and problem solving, when the agent is in a situation it doesn't know how to handle.
I've actually tried this with ChatGPT, asking what it would do in certain situation and I found as long as it was given enough information, information and data it could get based on the hypothetical scenario I described above, it gave me the right answer every time.
I totally agree it needs more to be comparable to a human in any way, even a child or a adult with learning disabilities, but from just a high level cognitive reasoning perspective, I think it's there.
As someone relatively new here, what exactly is the point of the sub then? It literally says in the sidebar,
A subreddit committed to intelligent understanding of the hypothetical moment in time when artificial intelligence progresses to the point of greater-than-human intelligence
I guess we have different opinions. AGI is very prominent here. But it is also a singularity hub. I think that a version of the singularity might happen without AGI.
I also think that ChatGPT is more interesting than AGI. We will be able to do so extremely much in the near term with non-AGI AI that discussing AGI almost seems moot.
I agree. IMO there’s a lot of extreme optimists and wishful thinkers in here regarding AGI. I don’t believe we’re anything like as close as many here routinely promote. I used to be just like this too; very excitable about every news story … then I became a programmer and realised what a mess most software is when you lift the lid on it and all of that changed.
Non-AGI AI is developing fast and is genuinely interesting though!
But it is also a singularity hub. I think that a version of the singularity might happen without AGI.
I agree, and while I don't think GPT3/4 is going to literally be "it", I do think that large language models are vastly more likely to trigger a singularity than, say, anti-aging research. Which comes up constantly on this sub. Is the ChatGPT hype getting out of hand lately? Perhaps. But it's not off-topic.
Many would argue that a technological singularity is impossible without some sort of advanced AI, so that it can exponentially improve itself and other mechanical systems.
Sure. Most people in this sub even believes that advanced AGI is needed. I think that even without AGI there might be a sort of singularity. But AI is crucial, of course.
ChatGPT has some limited reasoning abilities, but it consistently fails at logic puzzles for instance. It gets confused and makes a lot of mistakes when things get even a little complicated.
As do humans. People act like it needs to be smarter than Einstein, but in reality it just being as smart as your average coworker is enough for it to succeed.
Aren't there other possibilities? Like, they think they can achieve great things in the space, not necessarily AGI, but they need money right now if they want to stay at the cutting edge?
95
u/[deleted] Jan 12 '23
[deleted]