Hacker News Reader

Comment by mjirv | Hacker News Reader

OpenAI arguably already has AGI. GPT-3/ChatGPT is much better than the average human at coding, text summarization, etc. (“system 2” cognitive tasks).

View on HN

> OpenAI arguably already has AGI.

Just no.

> GPT-3/ChatGPT is much better than the average human at coding, text summarization, etc. (“system 2” cognitive tasks).

I don't think you even believe what you have just said there.

Given it hallucinates 98% of the time and produces incorrect code and also is unable to reason about why it is wrong, it is completely untrustworthy and requires humans to triple check the output. It cannot be used unsupervised and needs constant review.

We haven't even gotten started with the nonsense that it outputs or how it cannot transparently reason about its own decisions in the most serious of applications such as finance, law and medical uses. Meaning that its use is instead reduced to just sophistry generation.

> Given it hallucinates 98% of the time and produces incorrect code and also is unable to reason about why it is wrong, it is completely untrustworthy and requires humans to triple check the output. It cannot be used unsupervised and needs constant review.

what sort of heavenly company do you work at where most ICs aren't described by this sentence?

It just needs to be better than the average person, not the average programmer

Hallucination will not cease until AI has individual experience. LLMs are only able to reason based on the understanding of words, but language is necessarily circular and requires external input to be truly understood. This is why for example Prometheus will begin saying short but similar sentences in a seemingly infinite loop when it attempts to convey emotion, since it has no sense of qualia. With larger parameter sizes, a concept of long-term memory and the ability to interpret the output of other models and the internet, this would be overcome.

With all of that said, I believe that attempts to create such a thing should be frustrated because it is fundamentally anti-human.

AGI = Artificial General Intelligence

The system has to be Intelligent to be an AGI.

Proof: if with AGI we did not imply Intelligence (and only meant "versatile"), we would have to coin a further term for it - "Artificial General Actual Proper Capital I Intelligence"? No need.

If it performs tasks, but not Intelligently, it is not AGI.

Even speaking about AI-intelligence, comparing its output with that of untrained or underperforming humans makes no sense until its output is compared to adequacy.

But, if you wish, you may tell around that we have reached some sort of "AVI", if you wish, with my creative blessing. Unfortunately, 'Artificial Versatile Intelligence' collides with 'Audio Video Interleave'.

ChatGPT is almost as good as a pretty mediocre human at some tasks. I would not say it's even close to "much better than the average."

The average human cannot program, not even a little.

The average human cannot summarize (for example) Anna Karenina from memory.

That's not a fair comparison, the average human hasn't been trained in those tasks, and ChatGPT has. Extensively, in fact.

If you taught the average human to do either of those things, they'd do better than ChatGPT does.

Define 'extensive training' on these particular items. It was given a large corpus of data, and a relatively limited amount of "yes that's right/no you're wrong" on the answers it is formulating.

But even beyond that point, you have to take a bunch of human time to train an individual those things you're talking about, and then they quit, or get hit by a car. Already GPT has a far larger corpus of information than any individual can hold. It won't quit its job. It can be backed up and restored. And every 6-12 months the systems are getting better.

It's not a fair comparison at all, humans just keep sucking under those constraints.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com