[famouswaffles]

The fact that people take agi to mean "can invent new math" is a goalpost shift on its own. That was not the original meaning (generally intelligent), that wasn't even the next moved goal (on par with human experts). I guess the next one counts (better than all human experts) but i'm sure we'll move that again too.

[akiselev]

The problem was always underspecified. We don’t have a quantifiable metric for intelligence except IQ tests, benchmark datasets like those used to evaluate different LLMs, and other similarly myopic bullshit. “We’ll know it when we see it” becomes the default.

In reality, the goal posts aren’t being moved, we’re just finding out how much further we are from them than we thought. ChatGPT is a "stochastic parrot" that’s seems way “smarter” than anyone thought possible so we have to reevaluate what we consider evidence of intelligence, perhaps coming to terms with the fact that we aren’t that smart the most of the time.

[famouswaffles]

Sorry but nope. GPT-4 is plenty intelligent. I've begun to question the intelligence of anyone that reduces it to "stochastic parrot" because they're not even arguing against results but arbitrary lines drawn on sand.

The "We'll see it when it comes" line is just utterly wrong, If there's one thing experts seem to agree on is that not everyone will agree when current definition of agi does arrive.

The philosophical zombie is an excellent example of the extent of post shifting we're capable of. Even when a theoretical system that does every single thing right comes, we're looking for a way to discredit it. To put it below what we of course only have.

lots of researchers now aren't questioning GPT's general intelligence. That's how you end up with papers alluding to this technology with amusing names like General purpose technologies(from the jobs paper) or even funnier - General artificial intelligence (from the creativity paper).

You know what the original title of the microsoft paper was? "First contact with an agi system". and maybe it's just me but reading it, i got the sense they thought it too.

[vintermann]

> The philosophical zombie is an excellent example of the extent of post shifting we're capable of.

I was with you until here. That has nothing to do with this. That argument is about separating intelligence from having a subjective experience, not moving goalposts for intelligence.

[famouswaffles]

It's a tangential relation but it's a relation. I don't think i would say it has nothing to do with it. Goal posts shifting in the field of machine learning isn't just about the posts for defining intelligence. It's broader and deeper than that.

I brought it up because i thought it fit the point i was driving at. Humans/people don't see subjective experience. I don't know that you're actually having some subjective experience. I'm working on what i see and results, same as you.

If you have two unknown equations but one condition - these 2 equations return the same output with the same input. well, then any mathematician would tell you the obvious - the 2 equations are equal or equivalent. it doesn't actually matter what they look like.

This is just an illustration. The point i'm driving at here is that true distinction shows in results. It's a concept that's pretty easy to understand. Yet turn to artificial intelligence and it just seems to break down. People making weird assertions all over the place not because they have been warranted in any empirical, qualitative or quantitative manner but because there seems to be this inability to engage with results...like we do with each other.

when i show the output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand, the arguments quickly shift to "it's not real understanding!" and it's honestly very bizarre. What kind of meaningful distinction can't show itself, can't be tested for ? If it does exist then it's not meaningful.

I think that the same reason people shift posts for intelligence is the same reason people fear the philosophical zombie.

idk maybe i'm rambling at this point but just my thoughts.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> when i show the output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand, the arguments quickly shift to "it's not real understanding!" and it's honestly very bizarre. What kind of meaningful distinction can't show itself, can't be tested for? If it does exist then it's not meaningful.

I agree with you totally. Here's some output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understanding:

  All men are mortal.
  Socrates is a man.
  Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

I just copy-pasted that from wikipedia. Copy/paste understands syllogisms!

Explain that!

[famouswaffles]

Is this your argument? Really?

I'm Just surprised honestly. All of the straw man arguments, this is the best you can come up with?

Man do better. GPT-4 would have a better response than this.

[lukeschlather]

> The fact that people take agi to mean "can invent new math" is a goalpost shift on its own.

I don't think this is a goalpost shift at all. I agree that GPT actually is "generally intelligent" but then so is Google Search. The point of the term AGI is that it has generally applicable intelligence that is on par with a human, I don't think that's really changed.

The problem with GPT is still that every single interaction I've had with it, I've pointed out issues with its logic and it is incapable of understanding my objection. It agrees with whatever I say and then immediately repeats the same mistake. And these aren't "invent new math" questions, there's a very clear inability to follow a logical chain of cause and effect.

I should be clear at the same time I still have a feeling ChatGPT might be conscious. It's obviously kind of a dreamlike consciousness without ability to hold state but it does feel like it could be conscious.

[tanseydavid]

>> is that it has generally applicable intelligence that is on par with a human

Which human or humans?

I freely admit that I do not posses the intelligence to "invent new math" but I am pretty sure that I am "smarter than the average bear" (to borrow a phrase).