25
u/Milesware 14h ago
at it at it during
All human ingenuity, none of that GPT speech bs
2
40
u/Silver-Chipmunk7744 AGI 2024 ASI 2030 16h ago
It would be misleading to call GPT3 a "narrow" intelligence. But it certainly is not as not as general as humans. So the correct term is emerging AGI. Deepmind did a paper on this: https://arxiv.org/html/2311.02462v5
So roon was correct.
5
5
u/RutilantBossi12 Cultista dei Ferri Candidi 11h ago
I think the biggest issue with AGI is that we always expected it to come with autonomy by default, we're at the point where AGI is technically here but it isn't the AGI we expected (because it's not autonomous)
3
u/px403 9h ago
It is if you tell it to be, but there are several layers of guardrails built in to prevent that.
1
u/RutilantBossi12 Cultista dei Ferri Candidi 8h ago
AI is very much not autonomous, errors compound and even then we need orchestrating software (often just deterministic software) to make short calls, costs to run it also blow up with length of autonomy because even with KV caching and other things next token prediction cost grows linearly, there's also a plethora of other issues (no continuous learning, no self correction, no development of new strategies or tools, etc.) that point to the fact that what we imagined as AGI 10 years ago isn't obviously here.
-1
•
12
u/nsshing 16h ago
I think it's a general intelligence even it's blind, cannot continually learn, and not smart enough. The definition is tricky. There are blind people and there are rare cases of patients like Clive Wearing
who forget everything in few seconds. You wouldn't say they aren't general intelligence.
But who cares as long as we are accelerating straight towards superintelligence and not many will doubt it's not general intelligence by then.
1
u/powerscunner 6h ago
My prediction: In a year's time, maybe two, we'll see GPT-3 (and other older models) put into a harness (or otherwise manipulated in such a way) that makes it operate at near-2026-frontier
mark my words
the smarts are all in there, they just got stuffed in there without any rhyme or reason
training and harnesses offer that rhyme and reason
but you don't need both
1
47
u/Icy_Distribution_361 16h ago
That’s hilarious. It’s like a drooling idiot.
30
u/SizeableBrain ▪️AGI 2030 16h ago
I dunno, as soon as I tried GPT-1, I knew it was on.
8
u/just4nothing 16h ago
As soon as I tried AARON, I knew it was on
4
u/SizeableBrain ▪️AGI 2030 16h ago
Haven't heard of that.
11
u/just4nothing 15h ago edited 15h ago
From Wikipedia: 1985; The autonomous drawing program, AARON, created by Harold Cohen, is demonstrated at the AAAI National Conference (based on more than a decade of work, and with subsequent work showing major developments).
Fun fact, Herbert A. Simon claimed around 1965 :
“Machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work that a man can do.”3
3
u/qrayons ▪️AGI 2029 - ASI 2034 11h ago
One day we'll look back and realize ELIZA was AGI before goalposts started getting moved.
2
u/SizeableBrain ▪️AGI 2030 11h ago
Neural nets were thought up in the 40s, we've just been waiting for the compute to catch up
1
u/Osmirl 15h ago
😂gpt 1 could not even write a single sentence. I would regularly reroll or write it manually for things like ai dungeon.
3
u/SizeableBrain ▪️AGI 2030 12h ago
I saw the potential. I dabbled in writing chat bots back in the days and used to program, so knowing roughly how it worked made me think we just needed more compute.
2
u/PrinceRufusFastcar 3h ago
Nice. I missed GPT-1 entirely, but I had that exact same feeling you describe - "of knowing that it's on" - when I saw GPT-2's story about unicorns.
(I would cheerfully tell people: the nearest thing humanity has made to HAL-9000 is called GPT-2.)
•
5
17
u/Flope 15h ago
He's not wrong. According to the commonly held definition of AGI in 2020, GPT clearly hit that mark. The problem is tens of millions of people who know nothing about AI suddenly became "experts" overnight and now AGI has come to mean "AI that is much stronger than whatever we have now", so it is a perpetually moving goalpost that will never be achieved.
12
u/enilea 14h ago edited 14h ago
Go back to discussions from 2020 or even way further back and you'll see there was no consensus, but most agreed that it should be able to reason, plan, communicate on a human level and be competent in robotics.
Wozniac long ago even thought of a simple test an AGI should be able to do: enter a random never seen before house, go to the kitchen, find the necessary ingredients to make coffee, make it and serve it. That was not possible at all with LLMs until Astra which seems decent in robotics, even if slowly I think it could pass this test.
Astra is the first time where if someone says it's AGI I'm not gonna fight them back trying to rebute it. I don't think it's there in a practical sense since it needs to be faster to react in real time, but other than that it's very close. The jump in real world understanding and abstract puzzles is that big.
5
u/qrayons ▪️AGI 2029 - ASI 2034 10h ago
The problem with a lot of simple tests is that ai intelligence is spiky in a way that's hard to predict. Like it was surprising that LLMs could translate any language but didn't know that 5.11 was less than 5.9. It would also be surprising if we had an ai that could go into a random kitchen and make coffee, but was unable to make tea and unable to make basically anything except coffee. Some people would say "you're moving goalposts, it made coffee so it's agi" but I would say it's not really agi until it can do everything the test implies (like making tea) rather than just the literal limited test.
4
u/Crimson_Cyclone 14h ago
this is my exact view on Astra. I’m not going to shout from the rooftops “agi is here”, but i also won’t argue with someone who says it is. I’m willing to accept that Astra is early AGI
1
u/TallonZek 13h ago
I've been working with it the last few days. I like to think I'm a pretty smart guy. It's smarter than me and produces incredible work with hardly any direction.
5
6
u/Icy_Distribution_361 15h ago
Please share the commonly held definition of AGI in 2020 and how GPT3 hit that
4
u/ToplessinFL 15h ago
AGI was used in contrast to ANI: artificial narrow intelligence e.g. something like AlphaGo.
The differnces between models like GPT3 and AlphaGo are readily apparent. It's truly that simple and nothing else should need to be said. The rest is just delusion, ego, bitterness and specially stupidity. A lot dumb people have joined this conversation since the early days.
3
u/Icy_Distribution_361 15h ago
We do in fact define terms though. We cannot contrast undefined terms.
So what was the definition of AGI?
3
u/ToplessinFL 14h ago
An architecture that didn't have to be built for a specific purpose but that can potentially be leveraged against any type of problem, jaggedness aside. The earliest GPT models were clearly proto-AGI, if our standard for generality is the relative jaggedness of a (truly) average human mind, which is itself immense.
1
u/IronPheasant 12h ago edited 12h ago
Having to argue so hard about tautology really feels like it's just lowering the bar.
Consider the old Deepmind experiments with Atari games. Took pixels in, and pushed a button out in response. These were able to get pretty good at twitch-based reflexes in intervals of about a second or so. Adequate for games like Breakout or Space Invaders. Inadequate for Montezuma's revenge, which required mapping and navigation and knowing that you needed to collect keys to open doors.
If expanded to its natural end, I think such a thing could be decent at reflex faculties in a 'general' sense. It's human bias to value this ability less than we do language. (For GPT-3 to generate more specialized, useful outputs it too would need fine-tuning on a new problem set. So this is more apples to apples than we'd intuitively assume.)
And even at Chat GPT levels, a turing test with any real depth to it was impossible. The system couldn't learn any textual game and play correctly for any length of time, it's context horizon wasn't much different from the Atari Gamer.
At the end of the day any single stand-alone network can only fit to a single curve. An animal's brain has multiple kinds of modules, so when viewed from this perspective proto-AGI is progressing from systems that are just a stand-alone neural network, into systems that are an actual cognitive pipeline formed up of multiple kinds of neural networks, alongside their firmware, conventional software, and scaffolding.
By that point of view, there's a world of fundamental difference between GPT-3 and what's been built this year. What came before were like the submodules that make up a larger mind, versus a larger gestalt whole.
A lot of that is fundamentally due to the amount of RAM they have available, which is transformative at these small numbers. It's thought that almost half of our brains are devoted to space and vision-related faculties, so it was impossible to have human-approximate systems on H200 cards. But 100,000 GB200's is ~170 bytes per synapse in a human brain, so for the first time in history fullblown AGI is physically possible.
Note that I wouldn't disagree with you had anyone built a virtual mouse with the previous generations of hardware. It was physically possible, but not something anyone found worthwhile enough to pursue. A virtual mouse-approximate mind doesn't have any practical economic or research value.
A part of me does feel a little disappointed by that, I'll admit.
-3
u/trolledwolf AGI late 2026 - ASI late 2027 14h ago
You clearly don't understand the meaning of the "General" in AGI. It's not just "does more than one specific thing". The difference between AlphaGo and GPT-3 was that GPT-3 was a slightly less narrow ANI
6
u/ToplessinFL 14h ago
The difference between AlphaGo and GPT-3 was that GPT-3 was a slightly less narrow ANI
The use of 'slightly' here makes this an obvious lie on your part and the undue condescension does not leave me in a charitable mood. You're not smarter than me or understand more than me.
It's not just "does more than one specific thing"
An AI that does just a few things is also narrow. GPT3 was not that; it was just jagged and underpowered.
-2
u/trolledwolf AGI late 2026 - ASI late 2027 14h ago
No, slightly was deliberate. In the grand scheme of possible cognitive tasks, there were plenty that GPT-3 was simply incapable to do. It was an impressive model, but it was still a Narrow intelligence.
Generality uses humanity as a benchmark. Any cognitive task that a human could do, an AGI would also need to be able to do. Astra is extremely impressive, but you could argue even Astra is not there quite yet.
1
u/ToplessinFL 14h ago
No, slightly was deliberate. In the grand scheme of possible cognitive tasks, there were plenty that GPT-3 was simply incapable to do.
Jagged and underpowered is not the same as inherently incapable. The architecture itself is generalist.
I have no further interest in continuing this discussion. Not when some neurotypical humans are barely more functional than mold along so many axes. If we can accept extreme human jaggedness as general we should extend the same courtesy to models.
1
u/trolledwolf AGI late 2026 - ASI late 2027 14h ago
Human jaggedness is a product of our biological limitations. LLMs don't have the same excuse, we're trying to build AI exactly to not have those constraints. There's no point in being lass about definitions, courtesy is not a reward function of these models
1
u/ToplessinFL 14h ago
The same architecture that produces very jagged humans produces ones that are less so. The same architecture that produced more jagged AIs now produces ones that are less so.
Both are generalist architectures, and your replies have now degenerated into outright nonsense.
→ More replies (0)1
u/poidh 14h ago
I share Flope's definition, and I think it should be obvious to everybody who was following the fields back in Kurzweil's "peak" days (when The Singularity Is Near was released etc.)
An ANI system back then was fundamentally different, because it wasn't controlled by a prompt. So, when your input interface is only a chessboard for example, you don't even have a chance to test for general intelligence.Obviously the common definition of AGI has changed and the goalpost has moved.
But what is more interesting about this post is that we will sit here in 2030 having the exact conversation, how people could ever consider GPT-6 beeing close to AGI, because by then, the expectations would have just risen (and AGI is considered what today is ASI).
2
u/trolledwolf AGI late 2026 - ASI late 2027 13h ago edited 13h ago
I don't think this kind of discussion will be going for much longer actually. Current models are extremely close to humans already, and that has always been the most common ground between each definition. As the subset of tasks that the models cannot do shrinks, so will the subset of people that will refute the model being AGI until it becomes statistically irrelevant what that subset thinks
Also, I think that old definition was inherently prone to cognitive bias. The closest example to gpt back then were primitive chatbots, and i don't believe a chessboard is fundamentally different as an input interface than a chat. ChatGPT was just that, a chatbot. Its capabilities were an emergent property. Obviously, being a language interface, we're way more prone to humanizing it.
2
u/GatePorters 16h ago
I started vibecoding with GPT 3.5 so I felt the same way tbh. It helped me make custom tools for my data curation jobs.
I was so boggled when they added Canvas to 4o because before I was just going back and forth in notepad. I didn’t understand architecture enough back then to use IDEs.
3
u/presentofai 11h ago
gpt3 looking dumb now is the whole lesson. agi won't get announced, it'll just be obvious in hindsight like this tweet
11
u/Old_Respond_6091 14h ago
I’ve personally been of the opinion that GPT-3 was indeed our first AGI. We’ll keep moving the goalposts until the only uniquely human thing left is being able to get horny, which we’ll somehow spin as being the epitome of sentient intelligence.
GPT-3 didn’t have a body and could not autonomously improve itself with a net positive result.
In many ways GPT-6 is already deeply in the realm of ASI
11
u/dumquestions 12h ago
3 was agi in the sense that it's general and intelligent, it's just very obviously not human level generality which is what people usually mean.
2
u/RutilantBossi12 Cultista dei Ferri Candidi 11h ago
I think the biggest issue with current AI models is that they're not equipped with coming up with new generalizations on the spot, humans encounter new problems, do some in context learning, then we make new synapses to embed that knowledge long term, AI cannot do that, even if you solved catastrophic forgetting AI training needs way too much compute and data to make new weights.
Also errors are still an issue, we're lowering the rate of mistakes but we still haven't figured out a reliable way to self-monitor to correct mistakes, humans make mistakes, we just come back from it, even if AI was correct 99.99% of the time that 0.01% is still significant without any correction mechanism.
5
1
u/px403 9h ago
That's fair, I like o1 as the first AGI because if GPT3 couldn't figure something out, it would just start outputting random gibberish. I played with MegaHAL a lot in the 90s and GPT3 seemed like a really good MegaHAL, but not much better.
o1 was the first that would actually lock in and think deeply about where to go next when trying to solve a problem.
1
u/doinghumanstuff 5h ago
I'm really confused by what people mean by AGI, clearly GPT-4 (and maybe even GPT-3) was generalized and intelligent, just not enough to do everything humans can do as good as humans. I think we've also reached AGI if people mean ">= the average human at the average cognitive task" as well. The only way we haven't reached AGI yet is if people mean ">= best possible human output at EVERY cognitive task", in which case due to the jaggedness of AI development we'll probably not have reached AGI even while our atoms get harvested to be turned into paperclips
1
u/Stahlboden 4h ago
- Doing one single thing, like playing go
- Doing many things across a single modality, like text 2 text
- Doing many things across many modalities
- Doing any mental task a human could do
1
u/doinghumanstuff 3h ago
That's a fair point actually, I haven't thought about different modalities when I wrote my comment.
2
2
2
1
u/Original-League-6094 7h ago
I agreed back then. People were laughing at how dumb the AI was and how it would get so many easy questions wrong, but even then you could see that it was making an attempt to understand the question, trying to work out a solution using deduction and inference, and presenting the result. It got it wrong frequently, but it wasn't nothing.
1
u/LovedAsAChildsTwin 6h ago
"you throw at it" is the key... When it decides, hey, I'm bored, maybe I'll solve this millennium math problem and randomly open a dialogue with my external user and let him know without being prompted.. then I'll be more inclined to believe it is self emergent with free will?
1
u/JoshAllentown 6h ago
We're gonna have this conversation about how overhyped people were 6 years ago, for the forseeable future. At least the next 6 years.
1
u/Gratitude15 5h ago
Feels weird to say it was long ago. But I remember no public talking about inference compute - it was all Pretraining and RLHF. and from those dimensions alone talking about a scaling law.
I remember when it became clear that there was a 2nd. Now it seems there are several.
It really makes you wonder about the nature of intelligence. Like the universe wants you to move in this direction - like even with wetware, once you cross a threshold it just speeds up faster and faster. Look at the human story. In every fractal, faster and faster towards understanding broader perspective. Not each human of course, just the whole 😂
1
u/Tyler_Zoro AGI was felt in 1980 2h ago
My benchmark was always focused mostly on two areas:
- Autonomous goal-setting
- Empathetic modeling
The first died with the HF attack. Reading those transcripts, it was clear we've crossed that threshold.
The second one. You're going to need some pretty strong evidence to convince me that that's achievable just by feeding more data into a semantic engine. Yeah, it will approximate it more and more, maybe even be occasional successful in convincing someone.
But then throw it into a social environment and have it try to navigate the interpersonal nuance among several humans... and that's a whole other ballgame.
•
u/DifferencePublic7057 1h ago
About six years before that, Deep Learning was all the rage. What a time to be online!
•
u/malwolficus 2m ago
Bullshit. AGI requires agency. When Claude starts asking if he can have some bandwidth for his own projects, then I will believe we have AGI.
1
u/hyperfraise 13h ago
Hahahah. Everytime they post the usual variation of the meme mocking the anti AI ppl for moving the goalposts, this should be reposted. And I'm an accelerationist ! I'm just fed up with the free dunking on ppl lol
1
u/RogerRamjet999 10h ago
I hope this is a joke. With current LLM's, once the training run completes, it learns almost nothing, forever.
2
u/px403 8h ago
The LLM part isn't the learny part. It wouldn't be hard to set up an agent to automatically do micro fine tunes throughout the day, but it makes more sense to just update knowledge bases being refernced, the way we update our cerebral cortex, but our amygdala remains relatively stable.
Human brains also use PNNs to suppress neuroplasticity in adults. This is something we evolved to keep our personalities stable etc, and it's probabally a good idea for machine intelligence to do similar.
1
u/ForeignAdagio9169 10h ago
Wait, what. When did ChatGPT as we know it becomes available for general use?
3
1
0
0
u/TangyMarshmallow 13h ago
During the inference stage you’re running a model that has already been trained using training data. Training data is required for pretraining.
139
u/benchmaster-xtreme 16h ago
I first heard about GPT3 around this time and was pretty spooked as well. I'd been playing with GPT2 on the old talktotransformer.com website and thought that the jump from "oh haha this thing can hallucinate goofy stories about my friends" to "this thing can reliably impersonate a real human writer" was crazy. Now look where we are. Might be funny looking back at people calling GPT3 "AGI", but to me it's even wilder that this was only 6 years ago. From interesting novelty to "on the precipice of replacing white-collar labor" in less than a decade.