[short_sells_poo]

Of course there are cases like this, nobody is perfect. But we are talking about mathematics here, not everyday subconscious decision making. I agree that 99% of daily life is trivial pattern recognition. That's not what distinguishes humans though is it? Because animals, down to single celled organisms do just fine without higher order mental capabilities. But we are talking about reasoning here - and specifically about structured one like math.

[andoando]

I disagree that daily life is "trivial pattern recognition".

Just our visual object recognition is immensely powerful and far beyond and current AI. A simple task like walking to the fridge requires a ton of pattern recognition and spatial reasoning. Recognizing people's moods/predicting behaviors is also incredibly involved imo.

Ive said this many times but perhaps we should focus on achieving dog level intelligence first before we start worrying about human level AGI.

[short_sells_poo]

Oh I'm very much with you. In fact I get irked by people here breathlessly parroting that human level AGI is upon us any day now. I'd be impressed if an AI had mouse level capabilities any time soon. I think the current models are very impressive, but they are parlor tricks compared to what a true AGI should be capable of.

[hollerith]

>if an AI had mouse level capabilities any time soon

That's why nobody has gotten any traction selling access to AIs for $20 a month whereas selling access to mouse labor is such a thriving business.

[short_sells_poo]

This is such a strawman. Do you have to really stoop to this level? There are a billion useless things people pay for, is that a measure of the intelligence behind it? People routinely pay $1000 dollars for a dog, does that mean a dog is 50x more intelligent than ChatGPT? All I'm saying is that we should be a bit more humble about intelligence when we understand so little about it.

Just because LLMs are useful, it doesn't mean they exhibit more intelligence than a mouse. A mouse probably also doesn't reason about anything, but it is an agent capable of independent behavior, something that is still very far removed from current AI models.

[hollerith]

>All I'm saying is that we should be a bit more humble about intelligence when we understand so little about it.

OK, as long as we're are being humble, how about we refrain from confidently proclaiming that there is a mouse level and a dog level that AI hasn't reached yet and that researchers will have to spend a long time getting past, so there's plenty of time before we have to worry about the possibility of AI's becoming dangerous or transformative to society?

[CamperBob2]

Just our visual object recognition is immensely powerful and far beyond and current AI.

That's a point you'll likely have to revisit pretty soon. Radiology, for instance, probably won't exist as a profession 20-30 years from now. Captchas are already pretty much done for.

[andoando]

Well 1. Radiology is an insanely niche subject not indiciative of general intelligence, and 2. AI being at good radiology isn't about object recognition or spatial reasoning, its data analysis connecting features to outcomes.

Lastly, check out the ARC challenge or any other spatial reasoning tests for AI. Humans get ~80% on these challenges whereas the best AI is still at 25%

[CamperBob2]

Can you point me towards a citation for the 25% figure? I'm seeing numbers like 96% ( https://paperswithcode.com/sota/common-sense-reasoning-on-ar... ) but I'm guessing that's just for a subset of the larger class of questions.

Also, are you familiar with this study? What are your thoughts on it? https://www.esmo.org/newsroom/press-and-media-hub/esmo-media... Seems like a valid case where AI is competitive with skilled humans at object/image recognition.

[andoando]

It seems theres multiple things by the name ARC. There is one by AI2 which is a text based science questions/word problems. The one Im referring to is this https://lab42.global/arc/

https://lab42.global/arcathon/leaderboard/

https://openreview.net/forum?id=E8m8oySvPJ

As to the study, I have the same objection as the radiology one. This isnt about object recognition and certainly not spatial reasoning, its the ability to predict cancer based on presence of visual features.

The "object recognition" part of this is super simple. Its a single, mostly 2D object in more or less the same angle, and the AI is trained on detecting just this.

[CamperBob2]

The "object recognition" part of this is super simple. Its a single, mostly 2D object in more or less the same angle, and the AI is trained on detecting just this.

And yet it outperforms human dermatologists.