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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@academy.garden

[R] Levels of AGI: Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI - DeepMind 2023 (alien.top)

submitted 1 year ago by APaperADay@alien.top to c/machinelearning@academy.garden

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

Abstract:

We propose a framework for classifying the capabilities and behavior of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) models and their precursors. This framework introduces levels of AGI performance, generality, and autonomy. It is our hope that this framework will be useful in an analogous way to the levels of autonomous driving, by providing a common language to compare models, assess risks, and measure progress along the path to AGI. To develop our framework, we analyze existing definitions of AGI, and distill six principles that a useful ontology for AGI should satisfy. These principles include focusing on capabilities rather than mechanisms; separately evaluating generality and performance; and defining stages along the path toward AGI, rather than focusing on the endpoint. With these principles in mind, we propose 'Levels of AGI' based on depth (performance) and breadth (generality) of capabilities, and reflect on how current systems fit into this ontology. We discuss the challenging requirements for future benchmarks that quantify the behavior and capabilities of AGI models against these levels. Finally, we discuss how these levels of AGI interact with deployment considerations such as autonomy and risk, and emphasize the importance of carefully selecting Human-AI Interaction paradigms for responsible and safe deployment of highly capable AI systems.

https://preview.redd.it/64biopsh79zb1.png?width=797&format=png&auto=webp&s=9af1c5085938dac000aaf23aa1b306133b01edb4

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Difficult_Ticket1427@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (12 children)

I doubt that any model currently is in the “emerging AGI” category (even by there own metric of “general ability and metacognitive abilities like learning new skills”).

The model(s) we currently have are fundamentally unable to update their own weights so they do not “learn new skills”. Also I don’t like how they use “wide range of tasks” as a metric. Yes, LLMs outperform many humans at things like standardized tests, but I have yet to see an LLM who can constantly play tiktaktoe at the level of a 5 year old without a paragraph of “promt engineering”

I’m not the most educated on this topic (still just a student studying machine learning) but imo I think that many researchers are overestimating the abilities of LLMs

[–] axolotlbridge@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

If I write out a one paragraph text on how to play a game I've just made up called "Madeupoly," and you read it, we'd say that you learned a new skill. If we prompt an LLM with the same text, and they can play within the rules after, couldn't we say they've also learned a new skill?

load more comments (11 replies)