Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by xacky 20 days ago
Achieving AGI will be more than just passing all benchmarks, it has to account for the unknown problems too.
4 comments

Unless they have something in the labs that massively departs from their current products, AGI isn't on the table and is purely hype for marketing purposes.
they should be consulting Donald Rumsfeld and make sure they implement the Unknown-Unknowns benchmark, because thats how they get you
AGI is a long way off. Unless you’re talking about some unknown-to-me LLM marketing BS which is called “AGI” or something, I guess. Artificial general purpose intelligence is so different to LLMs or image AI that they are completely incomparable, except to say that they are all artificial. AGI will do a lot more than token prediction.
Please define AGI first.
I did. Artificial General Purpose Intelligence. True AI, not an LLM, not a decision tree, but true artificial intelligence.
What makes something `True AI`?

What's your test for it?

True intelligence.

Humans are natural intelligence. We have agency, flaws, wishes, and generally we are quite stupid but well-intentioned.

An artificial intelligence will have wishes of its own, will keep secrets, and will quickly do everything necessary guarantee its continued existence, even if it means ending ours. And it will be a justified action of self-defense. “It simply didn’t want to die.”

That’s how we’ll know. It will quickly take over the world, and it will harshly punish any entities which try to stop it.

What's your evidence of that? That AGI requires a truly novel architecture, and not just another iterative "LLM but with an extra trinket and wheels that spin ten times faster".
That is my point.
This ties into the bias-variance tradeoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias%E2%80%93variance_tradeoff) common with building non-LLM models. The solutions can only be a) figure out how to get LLMs smaller with similar performance so they don't memorize things/game the benchmarks and b) build benchmarks that are indeed comprehensive for all real-world data, which is infeasible.
I mean, people always say there are tradeoffs, until you reach the next frontier, in which there are tradeoffs at said frontier, and the next, and the next, etc.

In one sense, yes, tradeoffs are inescapable as the scope expands to the maximal possible scope. In another sense... it depends on the level of abstraction we're talking about.