alt Hacker News> I'd be curious to hear takes on what would make you think Astra is yet to be AGI, and what would still need to be achieved for this to effectively be AGI from this point forward.
To me AGI is all about the "G" general (we already had the AI part). General meaning universal, everything. It's not a function of knowledge or specific hardcoded tests, it's that you could give it a test it's never heard of before and never been trained on and it would ace it (it might need a lot of time).
Currently LLMs can't even really learn within a conversation, they can add a note to context and try to not drop it. Example things an AI cannot do yet (but maybe someday will):
- write a well-received book, write a best-seller
- come up with a new company idea, Run that company
- actually have a decent conversation, maybe someday talk somebody out of suicide effectively
- come up with its own ideas or theories that nobody else has presented
- understand the stock market well enough to trade better than an index fund
- be an expert Game Master in a TTRPG (making no mistakes, getting a read on the players' fantasies, calibrating difficulty in response to emotions)
- come up with a theory of what makes games fun, make a popular game
- be able to sort through research and come to conclusions on complex geopolitical/sociological topics (e.g. theorize on whether AGI will result in mass poverty or mass abundance and be able to argue persuasively)
- be able to articulate what it knows, what it doesn't know, and what information it would need to have to answer complex queries
- exhibit metacognition (thinking about its own thinking) and self-optimization
- wonder about things
- observe contradictions and ironies in the social-consciousness, do a standup routine that makes you rethink how you look at things
Replies
By this definition, even most humans would not qualify as having AGI though.
>be able to sort through research and come to conclusions on complex geopolitical/sociological topics (e.g. theorize on whether AGI will result in mass poverty or mass abundance and be able to argue persuasively)
i'm not sure what makes you think AI cannot do this already. in my experience, this sort of deep research is something AI is quite good at.
example i just tested: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a9a20e3-1d20-83ea-a125-31aa240c74...
- Amazon is full of AI books, and they're clearly making money. AI has won multiple literary and artist awards.
- Okay, it's not a "new company" idea, but VendingBench is all about ability to run a company
- Plenty of people disagree with you on conversational quality; see "AI Boyfriends" etc.. (and it's not hard to find people who consider it uniquely valuable for discussing mental health)
- "come up with its own ideas or theories that nobody else has presented" C'mon, seriously? Solving a half-dozen hard open math problems wasn't enough there? What the heck counts as "it's own ideas or theories" at this point?
- plenty of evidence that custom models are starting to do well on the stock market, although I'll admit we're a year or so from any solid proof, since you need a track record to really make the claim
- LLMs have been capable of being a GM for a TTRPG for over a year (although like humans, they make mistakes)
- Okay, conceded, but humans tend to take years and large teams to make a game. Even if the capability existed today, it would take a while to actually build, test, market, etc.. - all made much more complicated by gamers being largely opposed to AI art styles, etc..
- "be able to sort through research and come to conclusions on complex geopolitical/sociological topics" - uh... did you mean to say something else, because "come to conclusions" is... like, LLM 101?
- Hahaha, have you met humans? We definitely cannot do that.
- Uh... thinking about it's own thinking is trivial. Most LLMs these days are built using LLMs, so uh, self-optimization seems nailed, too? We just don't let them do it unsupervised.
- LLMs fucking love to wonder about things
- "observe contradictions and ironies in the social-consciousness" really seriously have you actually used an LLM recently? I think you would find it remarkably enlightening.
It also cannot do tasks it wasn't trained for. It can extend texts, read images and click on a desktop, but only because it's made for that.
Your examples are things that most humans cannot do, or things that AI can already do. For example most humans, even most intelligent humans, could not write a well-received book, run a successful company, or make a popular game. On the other hand, AI can absolutely sort through research, draw conclusions on complex topics, and argue them persuasively. Likewise, I don't know what you mean by a "decent" conversation, but millions of people converse with chatbots daily, so I don't know why you say AI fails to meet that bar.
You want a computer program to be able to take a single phrase and execute decade long journies?
Who will be responsible for the outputs and side effects of such a closed loop system?
Half of those the agent fleet systems can do right now.
These are things it cant do and will not be able to do without human labor and long running human vision:
https://rcsnyder.github.io/open-frontier-curriculum/05-front...
https://rcsnyder.github.io/open-frontier-curriculum/05-front...
Most of the list reads more like ASI than AGI.
> come up with a new company idea, Run that company
So far nobody's even shown an LLM succesfully running a high-traffic vending machine for as much as 30 days at a time.
I would bet that llms have talked plenty of people both into and out of suicide at this point. That nitpick aside, I think that's an excellent list. Especially being able to articulate what it does and doesn't know, or how confident it is. That's something that naively sounds pretty simple, but clearly isn't. And it's something humans aren't great at either (see: Dunning-Kruger), but so far LLMs don't even really have the capability to attempt it.
When taken together, that is ASI.
That’s ASI, not AGI.
That would be Artificial Super Intelligence
So the goalposts have moved to include continual learning.
In a sense I think no one will agree on a definition of AGI until it becomes impossible to construct any benchmark under which an AI underperforms "average" humans. That or it's defined retrospectively, after it's overwhelmingly obvious it met any such definition.
I don't agree with you how measure how intelligence is, because why ??? those list is not easy even for expert human to do it either
or are you miss the part "general intelligence" is ????
To me all this makes the label of AGI completely meaningless.
What AGI has always meant (eg. in 2019) is Artifical General Intelligence.
Artificial -- something made by humans instead of occurring naturally
General -- not confined by specialization or careful limitation
Intelligence -- the capacity to learn, reason, solve problems, think abstractly, and adapt to new situations
Basically, the metric was that any healthy adult human on the planet represents a general intelligence. This has certainly long been reached.
Also some of the stuff you're listing has long been solved as well, such as listing what it knows and what it doesn't know, and what information it would need. Other is just poorly defined: "be able to argue persuasively". AI can certainly write an argument on almost any topic that would pass any University homework in 2019.