GPT4 and the Multi-Modal, Multi-Model, Multi-Everything Future of AGI

i dont doubt that the ARC team have thought this thru more than anyone here but right now there are probably 100 funded startups pursuing agentic AI without any safety qualms.

It exists now, it’ll develop. That the potential is being realised means the money being pumped into competing implementations will continue to skyrocket so it’ll only accelerate from here.

I would say it’s too late to do something about this, but in reality, wherever this is going was a foregone conclusion the moment early hominids began using tools. Technology doesn’t regress.

We're not getting the genie back in the bottle but there's still a lot of ways that we can change how we develop AI moving forward.

giving them ability to self modify means humanity will lose control of ai on any long enough timescale.

Of course not.

However "manipulate the news and social media so that the humans launch the nukes for you" isn't quite so far-fetched.

> How will an AI adversary interact any differently with than world than a flesh and blood adversary?

It's possible to spin up a whole army of AI adversary bots in a hurry. Recruiting that many humans takes a lot of time and money.

What hackers can’t do is make a new version of themselves that’s ten times more capable and spin up a thousand copies of it. This isn’t so unrealistic for an AI. Maybe some people think it is. But, at least in comparison, I think it should be obvious between hackers and AIs which one is more likely to be have hyper linear self improvement and self replication in the next 50 years.

Passing such a test is not a property expected of the average human yet the average human is considered a general intelligence, therefore this is not a property of a general intelligence.

Will be a big hit in Japan.

There's no question that ChatGPT could pass the Turing test (assuming it's told to try and to not to say it's a computer).

So, from one standpoint we've made it. But I'm in the camp that says this really isn't the AGI I thought we were going to get. Semantics matter now, and we need better definitions of what we're trying to do now.

I believe an important part of the AGI problem has been solved (or is at least downhill from here). What to do about the other parts? Let's better define what we do and don't have.

That and come up with better tests to replace the now outdated Turing test.

Most importantly, it still is not fully reliable (it “hallucinates” facts and makes reasoning errors). Great care should be taken when using language model outputs, particularly in high-stakes contexts, with the exact protocol (such as human review, grounding with additional context, or avoiding high-stakes uses altogether) matching the needs of specific applications.

Whenever they create a model than can achieve the same outputs without the heavy curation and deliberate bias on certain subjects (like condescending people for asking where to find cigarettes), then I'll be impressed.

Me: Hello, I am asking you a logic question. Please explain what "it" is in the following sentence

Me: "The X doesn't fit in the Y because it is too small"

G4: In the sentence "The X doesn't fit in the Y because it is too small," the pronoun "it" refers to "X." The sentence is stating that "X" cannot fit inside "Y" due to its size being too small.

Me: "This is incorrect, please give step by step logic on why you came to this conclusion"

G4: Apologies for the confusion. I will provide a step-by-step logic for my interpretation:

The sentence is: "The X doesn't fit in the Y because it is too small." We need to identify what "it" refers to in the sentence. There are two nouns in the sentence: X and Y. The sentence structure is such that the reason for X not fitting in Y is provided after the word "because." The sentence states that something is "too small," which is the reason for the lack of fit. Since the reason for the lack of fit is being given, we can infer that the pronoun "it" should be referring to one of the two nouns. However, upon closer examination, my previous interpretation was incorrect. Revisiting the analysis, the correct interpretation should be as follows:

In the sentence "The X doesn't fit in the Y because it is too small," the pronoun "it" actually refers to "Y." The sentence is stating that "X" cannot fit inside "Y" because "Y" is too small to accommodate "X."

My initial interpretation was wrong because I didn't consider that "it" could refer to "Y" and that the sentence is explaining why "X" cannot fit in "Y."

How exactly do you define novel tasks and problems?

My brother has had it do his programming homework (he's a teenager), written in Greek mind you and therefore novel task to the first-degree, and it succeeded. Thus it solved a logic task [1].

I have had ChatGPT parse math I had written in LaTeX and reach a correct result, do modifications and so on.

> Further, an AGI should logically attempt to "improve" its understanding of the world during a conversation, yet chat GPT never initiates a topic or asks you anything at all (even to clarify what you mean). It also repeatedly reminds you that it is only a language model.

Anecdata: I asked Bing (GPT4) to answer a few stuff and it asked for clarification twice in a row. The fact that it repeatedly clarifies its prompt is not a limitation of the underlying model as much as it is a limitation of the interface that injects a prompt. Dan and all the other jailbreaks out there bypass that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...

Both chatGPT and GPT models exhibit in-context learning, just as you do. The difference is that during your context updates modifications to your synapses occur as a consequence of your brain's activations.

Let's entertain a hypothetical scenario where I am a 5D creature, and you are (3 Space + 1 Time)D human.

I could go back to any point in your time and have any conversation that I wish with you. Each time I do that, I am effectively resetting your brain's state to that particular point in time.

The analog here is that for ChatGPT and the likes, time does not exist in the manner that it does for us, they are purely abstract in that they don't even need physical form to exist, it's a collection of ones and zeros that we store in such form because it is convenient.

You can very well store the parameters of the GPT models in any other medium capable of holding information and actually execute the model.

You can even compute gradient updates, or hook the models up to external data sources.

In the same vein, you "could" do the same for any human brain no matter how computationally prohibitive it may be.

You'd still classify the human brain as a general intelligence. Furthermore, we classify humans with long-term amnesia or inability to form new memories generally intelligent even though they only exhibit in-context learning.

The reference is the GPT-4 release paper. It's getting progressively better at things that require intelligence, like writing code and doing unseen exams across various fields that humans find difficult. The generality and depth of intelligence is progressively improving.

> unprompted, with intent

Neither of these are necessary for AGI. Intelligence doesn't require intent. Intelligence doesn't require something to be "unprompted" (which human intelligence isn't, either, our brain is being constantly prompted by our external senses).

Yes, and consolidation also. Competition also gave us their disruptors.

> maybe look for opportunities for cooperation instead

I hear you, and I don't disagree with your line of thinking, but cooperation to compete is a thing, no?

My point being, an adversarial strategy prevents power from coalescing into the hands of one group, because it actively seeks to disrupt that process. The more diverse competition there is, the more pressure there will be against huge corps.

Imagine you and a group of friends decide to develop a game. You make a company and have a team of four people. Your budget is tiny and you can't afford the same resources a huge game company can. You want your new company to be profitable so you use large language models to generate realistic material textures for your 3D models, and to generate a diverse range of intetestimg character backstories and dialogs. This used to require a larger team of developers and content creators but now you can do more with fewer people and ship your game sooner. You make a great game and users love it and it's a financial success.

But oh wait, you didn't explicitly disclose that you use an AI powered tool to generate some art assets and character backstories. Therefore you are just a greedy company that is abusing AI for profit.

That's so ridiculous.

Edit: obviously I should have just asked bing for a summary of the video. Below,

Show HN: The nightmare videos of children’s YouTube and what’s wrong with the internet today This is a TED talk by James Bridle, a writer and artist who exposes a dark, strange corner of the internet, where unknown people or groups on YouTube hack the brains of young children with disturbing and inappropriate content. He shows how these videos exploit YouTube’s algorithms and advertising system to generate views and revenue, and how they reveal a deeper problem with the internet today: a lack of human oversight, accountability and transparency. He calls for more attention and ethical responsibility from tech companies and users. Link: https://www.ted.com/talks/james_bridle_the_nightmare_videos_...