pegasus 21 hours ago

Who said anything of a minimum bar? "If so", not "Only if so".

Reply View 9 replies
  • andai 36 minutes ago

    Actually it's worse than that, the comment implied that Einstein wouldn't even qualify for AGI. But I thought the conversation was pedantic enough without my contribution ;)

    Reply View 0 replies
  • andy12_ 19 hours ago

    I think the problem is the formulation "If so, AGI can't be far behind". I think that if a model were advanced enough such that it could do Einstein's job, that's it; that's AGI. Would it be ASI? Not necessarily, but that's another matter.

    Reply View 7 replies
    • somenameforme 12 hours ago

      The phone in your pocket can perform arithmetic many orders of magnitude faster than any human, even the fringe autistic savant type. Yet it's still obviously not intelligent.

      Excellence at any given task is not indicative of intelligence. I think we set these sort of false goalposts because we want something that sounds achievable but is just out of reach at one moment in time. For instance at one time it was believed that a computer playing chess at the level of a human would be proof of intelligence. Of course it sounds naive now, but it was genuinely believed. It ultimately not being so is not us moving the goalposts, so much as us setting artificially low goalposts to begin with.

      So for instance what we're speaking of here is logical processing across natural language, yet human intelligence predates natural language. It poses a bit of a logical problem to then define intelligence as the logical processing of natural language.

      Reply View 6 replies
      • andy12_ 5 hours ago

        The problem is that so far, SOTA generalist models are not excellent at just one particular task. They have a very wide range of tasks they are good at, and good scores in one particular benchmarks correlates very strongly with good scores in almost all other benchmarks, even esoteric benchmarks that AI labs certainly didn't train against.

        I'm sure, without any uncertainty, that any generalist model able to do what Einstein did would be AGI, as in, that model would be able to perform any cognitive task that an intelligent human being could complete in a reasonable amount of time (here "reasonable" depends on the task at hand; it could be minutes, hours, days, years, etc).

        Reply View 4 replies