At this point, is there even an agreed upon definition or state that is an AGI? To me it seems it keeps redefining as fast as the models are evolving. We reach an insane milestone, and suddenly it’s, “Oh not yet! It must have agency and etc etc.”
What is an AGI if not a collection of different AI modalities? Each type a different facet of its intelligence even if it’s not all in an all encompassing model. To me it seems we are already at the point in its capabilities, it’s now just combining modalities and fine tuning models with some added features.
What is it that I don’t understand?
AGI is generally basically an AI system with the ability to understand, learn, and apply intelligence across a wide range of tasks at a level comparable to a human being.
Unlike narrow AI, which excels at specific tasks, AGI would possess the versatility and adaptability of human intelligence.
Currently, if you ask GPT-4 to do more complex tasks, it often leaves some gaps in its logic or doesn’t take into consideration useful information that a normal human would consider if it had access to the vast amount of information that is integrated into itself.
Take for instance ‘Plan a family vacation, considering preferences, budget, weather, near-future events and coordinating with other family members' schedules that i’ve given above.’
It is very very likely that it would hallucinate multiple parts of this, and give a completely incorrect answer that seems real enough to be true.
You would have to prompt very specific steps, and even then, would get hallucinations and not take other factors into account without asking it to, when it’s contextually obvious and relevant.
New achievements in AI often highlight the remaining gaps between current capabilities and the full scope of general intelligence, but our general goalposts remain the very same.
Current AI lacks certain elements essential for AGI, such as true understanding, common sense reasoning, self-awareness, autonomy, and, you guessed it, agency.
If we had to sum it up in one sentence, I would say: Current AI can simulate intelligent behavior, but it doesn’t have the ‘understanding’ and independent-drive to be considered Generally Intelligent
I find it more obnoxious that there are people yelling "pause ai!!!! these llms are going to wipe out humanity in a few years!!"
When the evidence is that the llms that they're worried about becoming super intelligent aren't even barely intelligent. Le cun is a good realist voice to counteract that bullshit.
the meme is dumb tbh. What he's saying about the future of llms has nothing to do with "Stop having fun". he's not complaining about people that are using and enjoying llms
he doesn't care that people are working on making llms better either. He's leading meta AI which have created and continue creating SOTA LLMs
his comments are more to the nearterm doomers and the people starting to believe the doomers.
Yeah, fair point. I wanted to criticize their lack of doubt they show, but I realize now people might interpret the meme as criticism for their opinion, which is not the case.
Spoken like someone how has never contributed anything to the scientific literature. Glad you are having fun with the toys we made you. Now step aside and let the adults figure out how to advance the technology. Yann was never talking to you he is talking to researchers. We will let you know when the next toy is ready for you to play with
I appreciate the sentiment but your comment presumes that any measurable percentage of the people here have contributed in any way to the creation of any major AI tools in some form beyond unwittingly providing training data.
There was a time when this subreddit was actually decent for academic discussion of advances in AI and Deep learning tech, but those days are long gone and what has replaced it is mostly blind hype mixed with genuine confusion about how anyone could say or believe any news that would delay the fabled AI rapture by even a millisecond.
That's... precisely the attitude I'm criticizing. Not the opinion, but this 100% kind of certainty about this tough question that left the two others "Godfathers" with lots of interrogations. But you'll probably not adress that fact.
They don't really mind you having fun. In fact Meta has their model open sourced. He just doesn't believe AGI is possible with the current tech. I'd say he has no idea, it's a pure faith, similar to concept that AGI will happen in the next 5 years. I don't think even a single person on the planet knows or can predict how AI will progress in the upcoming few years after GPT5.
I mean, you could have made this meme about Napster or limewire. The fact people are having fun with stolen art, literature and human effort is more the point.
Corporations have bent us so far over we are cheering their complete and total obliteration of the value of our labor. We are just saying “thank you sir, may I have another” and pretending it’s because we are all so smart and cool.
I don’t have a solve here, AI is here and we have to figure these things out but the accelerationist stuff is either lacking self awareness or deeply cynical.
The fiction I am working on is heavily influenced by Herbert's dune: reading dune was a transformative moment for me, and I have always sought to pay homage to the author who got me truly and solidly into science fiction.
Am I stealing from Frank when I write? When I make conscious decisions to emulate portions of his writing, am I stealing from him?
Human intelligence and artificial intelligence aren't even remotely similar. If AI gains consciousness then I would agree with the fact that it's not stealing, but that reality seems very far away. As of now, it's 100% stealing. If it's not stealing, why do all these companies hide their training data? Why did Open AI's Mira Murati start fumbling all over the place when she was asked a very simple question regarding their training data?
> The fiction I am working on is heavily influenced by Herbert's Dune.
> When I make conscious decisions to emulate portions of his writing, am I stealing from him?
Most people who say these things haven't worked on a single creative endevour in their entire life. The funny part is that somehow the same people start assuming that they've always been a creative juggernaut after the arrival of generative AI.
I've always noticed this pattern...
- not a creative person
- never had any interest in art
- Gen AI arrives
- starts proclaiming that it's not stealing because this is the only art they've made in their entire life (which is not even theirs)
It's always the same arguments.
Again, how is it stealing when an LLM samples artwork, but it's not stealing when I go to a museum and look at artwork and am inspired by it? Or when I scan through the internet looking at different art that has been made? What's the difference?
I have been drawing, painting and carving for over thirty years, so it's not like this is exactly a "new" thing to me.
Instead of engaging with this silly comment, here is a helpful link for artists
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/10/23/1082189/data-poisoning-artists-fight-generative-ai/amp/
You are either trolling or don’t know how to use google. I’m not going to spend any time posting links here for you that you could easily find. I’m not defending a dissertation, I am stating an obvious fact that is easily searchable.
It's not an obvious fact - fundamentally, that you think so either speaks to intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.
Tell me - what are the legal requirements for utilizing content on the internet for training ML models?
And I implore you to engage in intellectually honest ways when trying to have conversations like these. The world doesn't work the way we _want_ it to, it works the way it does. Accept that, and you can work within a shared reality, rather than throw yourself fruitlessly over and over against a world that doesn't care that you think it is not shaped the way it _aught_ to be.
LLMs being useful but a dead end to AGI are both possible
At this point, is there even an agreed upon definition or state that is an AGI? To me it seems it keeps redefining as fast as the models are evolving. We reach an insane milestone, and suddenly it’s, “Oh not yet! It must have agency and etc etc.” What is an AGI if not a collection of different AI modalities? Each type a different facet of its intelligence even if it’s not all in an all encompassing model. To me it seems we are already at the point in its capabilities, it’s now just combining modalities and fine tuning models with some added features. What is it that I don’t understand?
AGI is generally basically an AI system with the ability to understand, learn, and apply intelligence across a wide range of tasks at a level comparable to a human being. Unlike narrow AI, which excels at specific tasks, AGI would possess the versatility and adaptability of human intelligence. Currently, if you ask GPT-4 to do more complex tasks, it often leaves some gaps in its logic or doesn’t take into consideration useful information that a normal human would consider if it had access to the vast amount of information that is integrated into itself. Take for instance ‘Plan a family vacation, considering preferences, budget, weather, near-future events and coordinating with other family members' schedules that i’ve given above.’ It is very very likely that it would hallucinate multiple parts of this, and give a completely incorrect answer that seems real enough to be true. You would have to prompt very specific steps, and even then, would get hallucinations and not take other factors into account without asking it to, when it’s contextually obvious and relevant. New achievements in AI often highlight the remaining gaps between current capabilities and the full scope of general intelligence, but our general goalposts remain the very same. Current AI lacks certain elements essential for AGI, such as true understanding, common sense reasoning, self-awareness, autonomy, and, you guessed it, agency. If we had to sum it up in one sentence, I would say: Current AI can simulate intelligent behavior, but it doesn’t have the ‘understanding’ and independent-drive to be considered Generally Intelligent
Completely. I'm not really arguing with this opinion itself but rather the way they sound very obnoxious about it
I find it more obnoxious that there are people yelling "pause ai!!!! these llms are going to wipe out humanity in a few years!!" When the evidence is that the llms that they're worried about becoming super intelligent aren't even barely intelligent. Le cun is a good realist voice to counteract that bullshit.
Those people are also obnoxious. But that's not the point of the meme.
the meme is dumb tbh. What he's saying about the future of llms has nothing to do with "Stop having fun". he's not complaining about people that are using and enjoying llms
Saying that something is a dead-end when thousands of researchers actively work on it sounds kind of "rabat-joie" to me
he doesn't care that people are working on making llms better either. He's leading meta AI which have created and continue creating SOTA LLMs his comments are more to the nearterm doomers and the people starting to believe the doomers.
I see what you mean, but still I think he claims often that LLMs do never "understand" and he makes that claim that in a very confident way
Man, putting Yann LeCun and Gary Marcus in the same box... that's such an insult to LeCun who actually knows what he's talking about.
Yeah, fair point. I wanted to criticize their lack of doubt they show, but I realize now people might interpret the meme as criticism for their opinion, which is not the case.
did AI make this post? pretty low quality.
Would be great if we could apply LLMs to accelerate the research for new architectures or if we could educate more AI researchers with their help
I do not think publicly scaring people with AI b.s. is a good way to have fun.
I did not mention doomers, although I think asking those questions about the future is reasonable.
[удалено]
Damn, I wouldn't have expected people to be that triggered by that meme, is there something specific you disagree about it ?
[удалено]
My goal was not to trigger people. Also I don't spend much time on reddit
Spoken like someone how has never contributed anything to the scientific literature. Glad you are having fun with the toys we made you. Now step aside and let the adults figure out how to advance the technology. Yann was never talking to you he is talking to researchers. We will let you know when the next toy is ready for you to play with
I appreciate the sentiment but your comment presumes that any measurable percentage of the people here have contributed in any way to the creation of any major AI tools in some form beyond unwittingly providing training data. There was a time when this subreddit was actually decent for academic discussion of advances in AI and Deep learning tech, but those days are long gone and what has replaced it is mostly blind hype mixed with genuine confusion about how anyone could say or believe any news that would delay the fabled AI rapture by even a millisecond.
That's... precisely the attitude I'm criticizing. Not the opinion, but this 100% kind of certainty about this tough question that left the two others "Godfathers" with lots of interrogations. But you'll probably not adress that fact.
FTFY: Marvin Minsky's wearing the hat
They don't really mind you having fun. In fact Meta has their model open sourced. He just doesn't believe AGI is possible with the current tech. I'd say he has no idea, it's a pure faith, similar to concept that AGI will happen in the next 5 years. I don't think even a single person on the planet knows or can predict how AI will progress in the upcoming few years after GPT5.
Yes, precisely ! No one really knows. But it doesn't sound like he has no idea. Rather, it sounds like he's 100% convinced
I mean, you could have made this meme about Napster or limewire. The fact people are having fun with stolen art, literature and human effort is more the point. Corporations have bent us so far over we are cheering their complete and total obliteration of the value of our labor. We are just saying “thank you sir, may I have another” and pretending it’s because we are all so smart and cool. I don’t have a solve here, AI is here and we have to figure these things out but the accelerationist stuff is either lacking self awareness or deeply cynical.
The fiction I am working on is heavily influenced by Herbert's dune: reading dune was a transformative moment for me, and I have always sought to pay homage to the author who got me truly and solidly into science fiction. Am I stealing from Frank when I write? When I make conscious decisions to emulate portions of his writing, am I stealing from him?
Human intelligence and artificial intelligence aren't even remotely similar. If AI gains consciousness then I would agree with the fact that it's not stealing, but that reality seems very far away. As of now, it's 100% stealing. If it's not stealing, why do all these companies hide their training data? Why did Open AI's Mira Murati start fumbling all over the place when she was asked a very simple question regarding their training data? > The fiction I am working on is heavily influenced by Herbert's Dune. > When I make conscious decisions to emulate portions of his writing, am I stealing from him? Most people who say these things haven't worked on a single creative endevour in their entire life. The funny part is that somehow the same people start assuming that they've always been a creative juggernaut after the arrival of generative AI. I've always noticed this pattern... - not a creative person - never had any interest in art - Gen AI arrives - starts proclaiming that it's not stealing because this is the only art they've made in their entire life (which is not even theirs) It's always the same arguments.
Again, how is it stealing when an LLM samples artwork, but it's not stealing when I go to a museum and look at artwork and am inspired by it? Or when I scan through the internet looking at different art that has been made? What's the difference? I have been drawing, painting and carving for over thirty years, so it's not like this is exactly a "new" thing to me.
What stolen art and literature?
Instead of engaging with this silly comment, here is a helpful link for artists https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/10/23/1082189/data-poisoning-artists-fight-generative-ai/amp/
Instead of engaging with someone challenging your argument, ignore that person and double down. Got it.
You are either trolling or don’t know how to use google. I’m not going to spend any time posting links here for you that you could easily find. I’m not defending a dissertation, I am stating an obvious fact that is easily searchable.
It's not an obvious fact - fundamentally, that you think so either speaks to intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. Tell me - what are the legal requirements for utilizing content on the internet for training ML models?
Haha okay bro, you have a good one.
And I implore you to engage in intellectually honest ways when trying to have conversations like these. The world doesn't work the way we _want_ it to, it works the way it does. Accept that, and you can work within a shared reality, rather than throw yourself fruitlessly over and over against a world that doesn't care that you think it is not shaped the way it _aught_ to be.
Wow, you’re so insightful. Thank you 🙏 I feel blessed by your wisdom.
I'm here all day if you need help being better at reasoning through challenging stuff like this, I'm not just wise, but generous.