this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Machine Learning
1 readers
1 users here now
Community Rules:
- Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
- Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
- Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
- Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, everyone is just sorta ignoring the fact that no ML technique has been shown to do anything more than just mimic statistical aspects of the training set. Is statistical mimicry AGI? On some performance benchmarks, it appears better statistical mimicry does approach capabilities we associate with AGI.
I personally am quite suspicious that the best lever to pull is just giving it more parameters. Our own brains have such complicated neural/psychological circuitry for executive function, long and short term memory, types I and II thinking, "internal" dialog and visual models, and more importantly, the ability to few-shot learn the logical underpinnings of an example set. Without a fundamental change in how we train NNs or even our conception of effective NNs to begin with, we're not going to see the paradigm shift everyone's been waiting for.
See the trouble with the Turing test is that the linguistic capabilities of the most sophisticated models well exceed those of the dumbest humans.
I think we can just call the Turing test passed in this case.
The Turing test was passed in the 60s by rules based systems. It's not a great test.
Is ChatGPT Passing the Turing Test Really Important? https://youtu.be/wdCzGwQv4rI
I don’t think so. I doubt GPT-4 will be able to convince someone who is trying to determine whether or not the if the think they are talking to is a human.
There's literally been a website you could go on that opens a chat with either a human or GPT, but you do not know which one, and then you get like 30s to figure it out by chatting with them. Then you need to guess if it was a human or an AI you just talked to. And people get it wrong all the time.
Edit: link to the research that came from that https://www.ai21.com/blog/human-or-not-results
I think you have to use a reasonably smart human as a baseline, otherwise literally any computer is AGI. Babbage's Analytical Engine from 1830 was more intelligent than a human in a coma.
Ironically for robots and the like to truly be accepted, they will have to be coded to make mistakes to seem more human.
i kinda agree. the turing should take accuracy and wisdom into account. gpt4 is, much like how gpt3.5 was, very confidently wrong some times. the code or advice it could be giving you could be technically true, but very very stupid to do in practice.
“Very confidently wrong sometimes” is how I would describe most of humanity.