Reading the paper it seems they are problems a lot of people would fail at it too, at least some of the time. LLMs are not superhuman in logical reasoning seems to be the conclusion more than anything.
What you’re saying gets to the core of why I would call it AGK and not AGI. Training a transformer on known answers to problems and then observing that it can successfully answer questions related to those problems is cheating.
I think the way that Ilya suggests that the “test for consciousness is to train a model with an absolute absence of any training example remotely referring to the notion of a self or of feeling, and then ask it questions about feeling. If the model can do it, congrats, you’ve discovered consciousness.” Similarly, if you train an architecture on exclusively the building blocks of a particular class of problem, and also avoid training it on any sort of problem where it could just reason by analogy and get a correct answer (isolating first principles thing as the only option), then if it can solve the problem you have a genuine problem solving architecture.
It's not cheating for people so asserting that it's cheating for machines just seems like goal post shifting more than anything.
Like this idea to pass the machines through frankly ridiculous hoops that humans wouldn't even pass is just..ehh. you seen how children with no language development in childhood turn out ?
It just misses the point entirely.
It's like the user down the thread said. Some isolate groups will build asi while the rest of the world is bickering about philosophical zombies and consciousness.
> It's not cheating for people so asserting that it's cheating for machines just seems like goal post shifting more than anything.
I genuinely appreciate this argument, and was considering it myself. In which case, I’d almost argue that we “have” already achieved AGI, and maybe it’s just not that thrilling.
the posts keep shifting yes. the new definition of agi is much closer to super intelligence. However, depending on how close to experts the model is, there's room for more.
If the model is basically on par with experts then it's still human fallible. But...suppose a general intelligence that is the level at each task as the chess engines of today is at chess.
Basically the, "Oh you thought that was a mistake ?, no you just didn't understand the program" level of intelligence even for the smartest of humans.
I think the way that Ilya suggests that the “test for consciousness is to train a model with an absolute absence of any training example remotely referring to the notion of a self or of feeling, and then ask it questions about feeling. If the model can do it, congrats, you’ve discovered consciousness.” Similarly, if you train an architecture on exclusively the building blocks of a particular class of problem, and also avoid training it on any sort of problem where it could just reason by analogy and get a correct answer (isolating first principles thing as the only option), then if it can solve the problem you have a genuine problem solving architecture.