Submitted by Malachiian t3_12348jj in Futurology

Microsoft Research released a paper that seems to imply that the new version of ChatGPT is basically General Intelligence.

Here is a 30 minute video going over the points:

They run it through tests where it basically can solve problems and aquire skills that it was not trained to do.

Basically it's emergent behavior that is seen as early AGI.

This seems like the timeline for AI just shifted forward quite a bit.

If that is true, what are the implications in the next 5 years?



You must log in or register to comment.

AnarkittenSurprise t1_jdtyk6m wrote

This tech is in its infancy.

People criticizing current limitations are really missing the point. It's way ahead of what most anyone could have expected 20 years ago, and advancement is accelerating.


808_Scalawag t1_jdu6gxm wrote

It’s way ahead of what I expected a few months ago.


comradelucyford t1_jdu7v66 wrote

>It’s way ahead of what I expected a few months ago.

If it's all that they're claiming it's years ahead of where I thought it was even this morning.


Demonstrating theory of mind is huge. Understanding not only that different people have different amounts of information about an event but also being able to extrapolate what that means for their probable future actions. That is mind blowing in itself.


808_Scalawag t1_jduz3to wrote

Yeah I was shocked to learned GPT-4 has been around since last October


deadlands_goon t1_jdvbzds wrote

i hate the people making memes about the dumb responses they get talking to chat gpt, and how therefore AI is dumb and we don’t need to worry about it. So many people don’t realize how quickly, like on an exponential level, this kind of technology can advance


throw23w55443h t1_jdz44wg wrote

I think people get really hung up on the 'how' too and equating that to it, not 'thinking'.

You know 'how' humans come up with thoughts? It's surprising how many people think brains have some special capabilities to be creative masterpieces with every sentence, rather than meat sac computers than chuck out best guess words most of the time.

I don't this this is AGI, but an AGI could definitely come from this track.


AnarkittenSurprise t1_je0svve wrote

Yeah, I've experienced similar in conversations about this recently. A lot of objections seem to boil down to mysticism.


Silver_Ad_6874 t1_jdt73yo wrote

The upside could be insane. imagine being able to program a CAD program or to create a web app or basically do all sorts of work that are now done by humans. instead these people will be telling machines what to do in natural language so the acceleration to productivity could be enormous. If this Goes South Though de consequences will be bad because yes people will be combining AI with Boston Dynamics advanced new models so Ultimately a "Terminator" scenario is Absolutely possible. What A Timeline To Live in.

For The Record, if true, it confirms some of my suspicions around the nature of human intelligence, but the timeline is much earlear than I expected. 😬


Malachiian OP t1_jdteo63 wrote

Yeah, the fact that we basically tried to replicate the human brain and it all of a sudden became able to solve tasks it wasn't taught to do...

That certainly makes intelligent seem a lot less magical. Like, we are just neural nets, nothing more.


Silver_Ad_6874 t1_jdueq2n wrote

Exactly that. If the complexity of the human mind automatically emerges from a relatively simpel model with sufficiently advanced training/inputs, that would be very telling.


pharmamess t1_jdum003 wrote

What about the soul?


shr00mydan t1_jdvjen6 wrote

You are getting downvoted, but this is a fine question. Alan Turing himself answered it all the way back in 1950.

>Theological Objection: Thinking is a function of man's immortal soul. God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman, but not to any other animal or to machines. Hence no animal or machine can think.

>I am unable to accept any part of this, but will attempt to reply in theological terms... It appears to me that the argument quoted above implies a serious restriction of the omnipotence of the Almighty. It is admitted that there are certain things that He cannot do such as making one equal to two, but should we not believe that He has freedom to confer a soul on an elephant if He sees fit? We might expect that He would only exercise this power in conjunction with a mutation which provided the elephant with an appropriately improved brain to minister to the needs of this soul. An argument of exactly similar form may be made for the case of machines. It may seem different because it is more difficult to “swallow”. But this really only means that we think it would be less likely that He would consider the circumstances suitable for conferring a soul. The circumstances in question are discussed in the rest of this paper. In attempting to construct such machines we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates.


RedditFuelsMyDepress t1_jdvsmlw wrote

I feel like some people maybe take the word "soul" a bit wrong, because it sounds like something from fantasy-fiction. But consciousness is something that undeniably exists and it's very difficult to prove that any machine has one.


terdroblade t1_jdvw2cy wrote

Can’t prove something if you don’t know what it is. It’s a deep rabbit hole with many different sciences , from philosophy to neuroscience.


idiocratic_method t1_jdx5fwp wrote

you use the word undeniably but I've never seen actual proof of consciousness


RedditFuelsMyDepress t1_jdxgkvb wrote

By consciousness I just mean the subjective experience of self. Like the old saying "I think, therefore I am". I can feel and experience the world through my own body and I can assume other people do as well since they're humans just like me (unless I'm living inside a simulation or something and none of you are real). But how do we know a non-biological machine is able to experience the same?


canad1anbacon t1_jdxmsyn wrote

There is the mirror test. Being able to look into a mirror and recognize that is your own body that you see. Dolphins and chimps can pass this test


RedditFuelsMyDepress t1_jdxs0d6 wrote

A smart robot probably would recognize itself in the mirror, but I don't think that's really enough to prove that it's conscious the same way we are. The problem is that everyone experiences the world through their own body so we can't truly put ourselves in someone else's shoes and see and feel what they do. There's no way for me to even know for certain that other humans are conscious, I can only assume that based on us being the same species. A robot may have the appearance of being conscious, but it could be fake. Like a marionette being pulled on strings by its programming. Or like a character written into a story except that this character is being written in real-time by computer algorithms based on things happening around it. Someone might argue that humans are similar to that too, but the point is that puppets and fictional characters aren't conscious even though they may appear as such and a robot could be the same way.

I think we'd have to do more research and understand how the brain and electrical signals in our bodies work to determine if a machine is conscious.


Seidans t1_je1etr3 wrote

the "soul" is just the answers to something scientist and theolgist couldn't understand a couple hundred years ago, humanity and especially theist are just slow to understand that we are just a biological machine

everything too complexe to understand have seen a simple theological answers, easy to understand and rassuring to believe, while the observation is far more cruel and nihilistic


pharmamess t1_jdvtcb6 wrote

Really appreciate this answer, thanks. Food for thought!


Express-Set-8843 t1_jdw6wde wrote

First we would have to define what a "soul" is and then demonstrate if that thing actually exists before we could proceed further with your question.

Attempts to do so have proven unfruitful.


pharmamess t1_jdwdnnf wrote

>Attempts to do so have proven unfruitful.

What you mean is that you're not convinced by any arguments/explanations/evidence that you've ever come across. Many people are.

I'm not put off by the lack of a scientific proof. I think that there's more to life than what can be measured using scientific instruments. Life has unequivocally taught me this truth. It doesn't follow that there is necessarily a soul but I get the sense of it being a valid concept - and I am far from the only one to think that. But I understand the intransigence of the hard materialist / scientific reductionist position so there might perhaps be a little difficulty agreeing to disagree (apologies if I'm being unduly cynical).

I don't think it follows at all that "we are just neural nets, nothing more". That's an extremely narrow take on human consciousness which is obvious to anyone who has scratched the surface.


Express-Set-8843 t1_jdxkyzs wrote

>What you mean is...

And we've exited the realm of constructive conversation.

When you are talking to someone, let them tell you what they mean and you tell them what you mean. I will now exit this pointless debate.


qepdibpbfessttrud t1_je03pra wrote

Soul is our inescapable wonderment about thoughts raising from the unconscious when we're caught in the thought loop as most people spend most of their lives in. In wake and in dreams even. I guess most of it is caused by strong emotions experienced one day and perpetuated for years. Regret is a big one

Meditation allows one to see clearly. At first u're on the bank of river flowing past u, but then u're nowhere to be found. There's just river. Always has been


KnightOfNothing t1_jdtvjbm wrote

that's exactly all humans are and i don't understand you could see anything "magical" about reality or anything inside it.


phyto123 t1_jdu4wp4 wrote

Most things in nature follow fibonacci sequence and golden ratio in design which I find fascinating, and the fact I can ponder and appreciate the beauty in that is, to me, magical.


BilingualThrowaway01 t1_jdudp5a wrote

Life always finds the path of least residence through natural selection. It will always gradually tend towards being more efficient over time through evolutionary pressure. The Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio happen to be geometrically efficient ratios to use when it comes to many physical distributions, for example when deciding how to place leaves in a spiral that will collect as much sunlight as possible.


phyto123 t1_jdvm93a wrote

Excellent explanation. I also find it fascinating there is evidence that our ancient ancestors would build according to this natural order. The way Luxor Temple was built utilizes this order from its first room to the last


4354574 t1_jdu8nat wrote

We're conscious. Subjective experience is magical. The experience of emotions is magical. Being aware of experience is magical. If that isn't magical to you, to be you. What is even the point of existing? You might as well just go through the motions until you die.

There is no evidence at all that AI is conscious.


Surur t1_jdubb31 wrote

How do you know you are not the only one who is conscious?


4354574 t1_jdunko1 wrote

I don't. It's the classic "problem of other minds". This is not an issue for Buddhism and the Yogic tradition, however, and ultimately at the highest level all of the mystical traditions, whether Sufism, Christian mysticism (St. John of the Cross and others), shamanism, the Kabbalah etc. What's important to these traditions is what your own individual experience of being conscious is like. More precisely, from a subjective POV, there are no "other minds" - it's all the same mind experiencing itself as what it thinks are separate minds.

If your experience of being conscious is innately freeing, and infinite, and unified, and fearless, and joyous, as they all, cross-culturally and across time, claim the state of being called 'enlightenment' is, then whether there are other minds or not is academic. You help other people to walk the path to enlightenment because they perceive *themselves* to be isolated, fearful, angry, grieving individual minds, that still perceive the idea that there are "other minds" to be a problem.

In Buddhism, the classic answer to people troubled by unanswerable questions is that the question does not go away, but the 'questioner' does. You don't care about the answer anymore, because you've seen through the illusion that there was anyone who wanted an answer in the first place.


Surur t1_jdur5b3 wrote

Sure, but my point is that while you may be conscious, you can not really objectively measure it in others, you can only believe when they say it or not.

So when the AI says it's conscious....


audioen t1_jdw2frs wrote

The trivial counterargument is that I can write a python program that says it is conscious, while being nothing such, as it is literally just a program that always prints these words.

It is too much of a stretch to regard a language model as conscious. It is deterministic -- it always predicts same probabilities for next token (word) if it sees the same input. It has no memory except words already in its context buffer. It has no ability to process more or less as task needs different amount of effort, but rather data flows from input to output token probabilities with the exact same amount of work each time. (With the exception that as input grows, its processing does take longer because the context matrix which holds the input becomes bigger. Still, it is computation flowing through the same steps, accumulating to the same matrices, but it does get applied to progressively more words/tokens that sit in the input buffer.)

However, we can probably design machine consciousness from the building blocks we have. We can give language models a scratch buffer they can use to store data and to plan their replies in stages. We can give them access to external memory so they don't have to memorize contents of wikipedia, they can just learn language and use something like Google Search just like the rest of us.

Language models can be simpler, but systems built from them can display planning, learning from experience via self-reflection of prior performance, long-term memory and other properties like that which at least sound like there might be something approximating a consciousness involved.

I'm just going to go out and say this: something like GPT-4 is probably like 200 IQ human when it comes to understanding language. The way we test it shows that it struggles to perform tasks, but this is mostly because of the architecture of directly going prompt to answer in a single step. The research right now is adding the ability to plan, edit and refine the replies from the AI, sort of like how a human makes multiple passes over their emails, or realizes after writing for a bit that they said something stupid or wrong and go back and erase the mistake. These are properties we do not currently grant our language models. Once we do, their performance will go through the roof, most likely.


4354574 t1_jdwkos3 wrote

Well, I don’t believe consciousness is computational. I think Roger Penrose’s quantum brain theory is more likely to be accurate. So if an AI told me it was conscious, I wouldn’t believe it. If consciousness arose from complexity alone, we should have signs of it in all sorts of complex systems, but we don’t, and not even the slightest hint of it in AI. The AI people hate his theory because it means literal consciousness is very far out.


Surur t1_jdwqof7 wrote

> If consciousness arose from complexity alone, we should have signs of it in all sorts of complex systems

So do you believe animals are conscious, and if so, which is the most primitive animal you think is conscious, and do you think they are equally conscious as you?


4354574 t1_jdx1c88 wrote

If you want to know more about what I think is going on, research Orchestrated Objective Reduction, developed by Penrose and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff.

It is the most testable and therefore the most scientific theory of consciousness. It has made 14 predictions, which is 14 more than any other theory. Six of these predictions have been verified, and none falsified.

Anything else would just be me rehashing the argument of the people who actually came up with the theory, and I’m not interested in doing that.


Outrageous_Nothing26 t1_jdvbget wrote

Just calculate the probability of that arising from randomness. That’s just incredible, you see the answers and think easy because the problem was already solved for you.


KnightOfNothing t1_jdvcn5y wrote

no i see the answer and think "wow i really didn't care about the problem in the first place" sorry but things in reality stopped impressing/interesting me many years ago.


Outrageous_Nothing26 t1_jdvcq2h wrote

Sounds like a skill issue or depression one of the two


KnightOfNothing t1_jdvhuy8 wrote

you're not the first one to bring up "skill issue" when I've expressed my utter disappointment in all things real, is the human game of socialize work and sleep really so much fun for you guys? is this limited world lacking of anything fantastical really so impressive for all of you?

i've tried exceptionally hard to understand but all my efforts have been for naught. The only rational conclusion is that there's something necessary to the human experience i'm lacking but it's so fundamental no one would even think of mentioning it.


Outrageous_Nothing26 t1_jdvi8qx wrote

Well the truth, it doesn’t really matter, we could be living in a the magical world of harry potter and your anhedonia would do the same. I was just kidding with the skill issue but it sounds like depression, i had something similar happen but it’s just my unsolicited opinion and it doesn’t carry thar much weight


Outrageous_Nothing26 t1_jdvb8cl wrote

What less magical?? It takes a massive amount of computing power and data to train those things. Now try doing that without any templates to follow. How is that not complex enough?


808_Scalawag t1_jdu6d1b wrote

As a machinist my job would become quickly amazing and then non existent lol


Silver_Ad_6874 t1_jduf5ud wrote

Actually, like Tesla demonstrates with the remaining lack of true FSD,, interpreting the surroundings accurately may be more difficult than reasoning about those surroundings for now.


jetro30087 t1_jdu9slz wrote

How's that different from any Star Trek episode where a crew member goes to the holodeck and instructs the Enterprise's computer to build a program?

It's not inventing a program, it's completing a command using the information stored in its programming, according to the rules set by its programming. It codes because its trained-on terabytes of code that perform task. When you ask for code that does that task it's just retrieving that information and altering it somewhat based on the rules that dictate its response. Unlike humans however, it's not compelled to design a program that does anything without being prompted.


Silver_Ad_6874 t1_jduf07p wrote

The difference is emerging behaviour. If a sufficiently complex, self adapting structure can modify itself to perform more than it was trained for, the outcome is unknown. Unknown outcomes scare people.


BangEnergyFTW t1_jdu1x8h wrote

Silver_Ad_6874, while the potential benefits of AGI are certainly significant, we must also consider the potential risks and consequences that come with such a powerful technology. The acceleration of productivity you speak of could indeed be enormous, but it could also lead to massive job displacement and societal upheaval.

Furthermore, as you mentioned, combining AGI with advanced robotics technology could lead to catastrophic outcomes if not handled responsibly. It is therefore essential that we approach the development of AGI with caution and careful consideration of the potential risks and consequences.

As for your suspicions around the nature of human intelligence, it is important to note that while AGI may be capable of performing tasks that were previously done by humans, it is still fundamentally different from human intelligence. AGI may be able to learn and acquire skills, but it lacks the subjective experience and consciousness that are intrinsic to human intelligence.

In short, while the emergence of AGI is a significant development, we must approach it with a balanced perspective that takes into account both its potential benefits and risks.


deadlands_goon t1_jdvbfyh wrote

> Ultimately a “Terminator” scenario is Absolutely possible

ive been saying this for years and everyones been telling me we wont need to worry about that for like 50 years until chat gpt started making headlines


TheJesterOfHyrule t1_jdxnpht wrote

Upside? Taking my job? It won't aid, it will replace


Silver_Ad_6874 t1_je573vk wrote

Then figure out how to use AI to do something else that is easier and pays better. The times won't wait for you, as they didn't for sellers of buggy whips.

My own job seems to be on the line, too. Chatgpt can answer complex questions about my workfield with decent enough answers that if clients asked them to chatgpt instead of me, the differences are small enough to not matter. Luckily for me, most do not know what the right questions are to ask.

On the flip side? Imagine that you can now start to create things in a CAD program that you tell what to make in your own voice, not an arcane set of codes or even having to be able to draw. Then, get the AI aided/verified design 3D printed, and you have a prototype. The same goes for a modular printboard/micro computer design and the code for the software that runs on it. Suddenly, "everyone" can create new toys, tools, utilities, car parts, or whatever you can think of.

If you want to be fearful of AI, don't be afraid to lose your job. Be afraid to lose your life, Terminator style. 🙃


The_One_Who_Slays t1_jdtymbv wrote

Pretty sure it's not so much as AGI, but just a component for it.


YourWiseOldFriend t1_jdu5572 wrote

>The system goes online August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th.


InflationCold3591 t1_jdwayd0 wrote

“Microsoft issues press release designed to pump its stock price just before end of quarter”. Fixed your headline.


ovirt001 t1_je0ngws wrote

The recent and incredibly rapid advancements in AI suggest we're far closer to AGI than anyone assumed a few years ago. The next 5 years will see radical changes to every facet of life, AI will act as an accelerator for progress in nearly every field.


BangEnergyFTW t1_jdu1v97 wrote

Interesting find, Malachiian. Microsoft's suggestion that the latest version of ChatGPT is an early sign of AGI is certainly a significant development in the field of AI. If this is indeed true, it could shift the timeline for AI forward by several years.

In terms of implications over the next 5 years, we could see a significant acceleration in the development of AI technologies. This could lead to the creation of more advanced and sophisticated AI systems, with the potential to revolutionize industries such as healthcare, transportation, and manufacturing.

However, we must also consider the potential risks associated with the development of AGI. As with any emerging technology, there is always the risk of unintended consequences or misuse. It is therefore essential that we approach the development of AGI in a responsible and ethical manner, with careful consideration of the potential risks and benefits.

Overall, the emergence of AGI represents a significant milestone in the development of AI, and we should continue to closely monitor its progress in the coming years.


nagge247 t1_jdv8g2d wrote

It's funny how after using ChatGPT for a bit, it becomes really easy to find what is and isn't written by it. Please get a brain of your own.


RedditFuelsMyDepress t1_jdwmbmd wrote

Isn't language considered one of the cornerstones of high intelligence? I can kinda see how a LLM could have emergent intelligence since language can be used to describe almost anything.


itraveledthereAI t1_jdxzvrp wrote

CNET Gadget Reviewer here - Microsoft's paper is an impressive accomplishment that could be a major step forward in the development of AGI. It's exciting to think of the possibilities that GPT-4 could offer!


Electrical_Age_7483 t1_jdt7gfd wrote

Company exaggerates their new feature. How is this news?


Malachiian OP t1_jdth6wm wrote

I don't know... To me this definitely fits the definition of "general intelligence".

Its doing a lot of stuff that it wasn't taught to do.

This really does seem like the real deal.

It's done by 14 PhDs, I feel like that aren't there to just pump the stock price up.

Especially since Microsoft is separate from OpenAI (they have a profit share up to a certain point, but Microsoft doesn't retain shares after a certain point)


SplendidPunkinButter t1_jdv6xxo wrote

To people who work in computer science, it most explicitly does not. GPT4 is a LLM, not a general AI. You can make the biggest and bestest LLM imaginable, and it still won’t be a general AI. That simply isn’t the way a LLM works.


Phoenix5869 t1_jdufm0m wrote

> It's done by 14 PhDs

exactly. No PhD is going to make a claim like that if they are not 100% sure of the validity of that claim


Shiningc t1_je0eu7w wrote

"General intelligence" is an intelligence that is capable of any kind of intelligence. Sentience is a kind of an intelligence. We have yet to have a sentient AI. Not even close.

It makes no sense for a corporation to release a golden duck laying goose to the public. If they really have an AGI, then they can just use it to produce as much innovations as possible. They can just fire every employees except for a few. People have way too much wishful thinking because they so badly want to believe that people have created an AGI.


Shiningc t1_je0e97u wrote

And why would a corporation release an AGI to the public? It's a golden duck laying goose, they would not let their rivals have access to such a thing even if they have it. It makes no sense and people are eating up corporate PR like the gullible fools that they are.

Corporations only release things that "moderately useful", not revolutionary on the scale of AGI.


speedywilfork t1_jdt5zoz wrote

no it isnt, it still has no ability to understand abstraction, this is required for general intelligence.


Malachiian OP t1_jdtf3as wrote

What would be an example of that?

After reading the paper it seems like it's WAAAY beyond that.

Is there an example that would show that it can understand abstraction?


SplendidPunkinButter t1_jdv760u wrote

It’s a large language model. We know what it does, and we know that what it does isn’t general AI.

Here’s an interesting and insightful article that explains how it works in terms most people can understand:

I don’t share your views on this topic, but seriously it’s a very good article that explains a lot


speedywilfork t1_jdv74tu wrote

we don't even know how WE understand abstraction. so there is no way to program it. but as an example if you ask an AI "do you live in a computer" it won't really know how to answer that question. However if you asked a human "do AI live in a computer", most would immediately understand what you were asking. it is an abstraction.

Much of how we communicate is through abstraction, we just don't realize it. an AI wouldnt have any idea what to do. another example would be a "drive through" it is an abstraction. Humans know what it is, but an AI would be clueless. It could recognize what the window looked like it various form and shapes. but what if you pulled up to a restaurant and the line was 30 cars deep with a man standing in the middle of a parking lot waiting to take your order? you would know exactly where to go. but not an AI


Surur t1_jdve4sx wrote

Your examples are pretty bad and you should feel bad. > "do you live in a computer"

>> As an AI language model, I do not possess consciousness or emotions, and I do not "live" in the conventional sense. I exist as a complex set of algorithms and data structures running on computer servers. My purpose is to process and generate human-like text based on the input I receive.


> an AI wouldnt have any idea what to do. another example would be a "drive through"

>> As an AI language model, I don't have the ability to physically drive or navigate a vehicle. However, I can provide you with a detailed description of how one might navigate through a drive-through.

>> Approach the drive-through entrance: Look for signs indicating the entrance to the drive-through lane. These signs usually have arrows or the word "drive-through" on them. The entrance is typically located on one side of the restaurant, and you may need to drive around the building to find it.

>> Enter the drive-through lane: Once you locate the entrance, drive your vehicle into the designated lane. There may be multiple lanes in some cases, so follow any signs or arrows to ensure you're in the correct one. Maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front of you to avoid any potential collisions.

>> Review the menu: As you approach the menu board, take some time to review the available options. Many drive-through restaurants have large, easy-to-read menu boards with pictures and prices of the items. Some may also have a separate board for promotional items

Cut for brevity.


speedywilfork t1_jdvkqtr wrote

>Your examples are pretty bad and you should feel bad.

no they aren't. they illustrated my point perfectly. the AI didn't know what you were asking when you asked "do you live in a computer" because it doesn't understand that we are not asking if it is "alive" in the biological sense. we are asking if it is "alive" in the rhetorical sense. also it doesn't even understand the term "computer" because we an not asking about a literal macbook or PC. we are speaking rhetorically and use the term "computer" to mean something akin to "digital world" it failed to recognize the intended meaning of the words, therefore it failed.

>Approach the drive-through entrance: Look for signs indicating the entrance to the drive-through lane. These signs usually have arrows or the word "drive-through" on them. The entrance is typically located on one side of the restaurant, and you may need to drive around the building to find it.

another failure. what if i go to a concert in a field and there is a impromptu line to buy tickets. no lane markers, no window, no arrows, just a guy and a chair holding some paper. AI fails again.


Surur t1_jdvnp4j wrote

Lol. I can see with you the AI can never win.


speedywilfork t1_jdvt9wv wrote

if an AI fails to understand your intent would you call it a win?


Surur t1_jdw2bc1 wrote

The fault can be on either side.


speedywilfork t1_jdw6ptz wrote

so if an AI can't recognize a "drive through" it is the "drive throughs" fault? not to mention a human would investigate. it would ask someone "where do i buy tickets?" someone would say "over there", they would point to the guy at the chair and the human would immediately understand. an AI would have zero comprehension of "over there"


Surur t1_jdw9hy7 wrote

> so if an AI can't recognize a "drive through" it is the "drive throughs" fault?

If the AI can not recognize an obvious drive-through it would be the AIs fault, but why do you suppose that is the case?


speedywilfork t1_jdwo2mg wrote

>If the AI can not recognize an obvious drive-through it would be the AIs fault, but why do you suppose that is the case?

i already told you because "drive through" is an abstraction or a concept, it isnt any one thing. anything can be a drive through. And AI can't comprehend abstractions. sometimes the only clue you have to perceive a drive through is a line. not all lines are drive throughs, and not all drive throughs have a line. they are both abstractions, and there is no way to "teach" an abstraction. We don't know how we know these things. we just do.

another example would be "farm" a farm can be anything. it can be in your backyard, or even on your window sill, inside of a building, or the thing you put ants in. so to ask and AI to identify a "farm" wouldnt be possible.


Surur t1_jdwqzq5 wrote

You are proposing this as a theory, but I am telling you an AI can make the same context-based decisions as you can.


speedywilfork t1_jdx4i47 wrote

So i have 4 lines, 3 of them are drive throughs. so you are telling me that an AI can tell the difference between a line of cars in a parking lot, a line of cars on a road, a line of cars parked on the side of the road, and a line of cars at a drive through? what distinguishing characteristics do each of these lines have that would tip off the AI to which 3 are the drive throughs?


Surur t1_jdx9cvb wrote

The AI would use the same context clues you would use.

You have to remember that AIs are actually super-human when it comes to pattern matching in many instances.


speedywilfork t1_jdxdkr6 wrote

i have already told you that anything can be a drive through. so what contextual clues does a field have that would clue an AI into it being a drive through if there are no lines, no lanes, no arrows, only a guy in a chair. AI don't "assume" things. i want to know specifics. if you can't give me specifics, it cannot be programmed. AI requires specifics.

I mean seriously, i can disable an autonomous car with a salt circle. it has no idea it can drive over it. do you think a 5 year old child could navigate out of a salt circle? that shows you how dumb they really are.


Surur t1_jdxeibf wrote

> anything can be a drive through

Then that is a somewhat meaningless question you are asking, right?

Anything that will clue you in can also clue an AI in.

For example the sign that says Drive-Thru.

Which is needed because humans are not psychic and anything can be a drive-through.

> AI requires specifics.

No, neural networks are actually pretty good at vagueness.

> I mean seriously, i can disable an autonomous car with a salt circle.

That is a 2017 story. 5 years old.


speedywilfork t1_jdxm0sp wrote

>Anything that will clue you in can also clue an AI in.

>For example the sign that says Drive-Thru.

why do you keep ignoring my very specific example then? i am in a car with no steering wheel, i want to go to a pumpkin patch with my family. i get to the pumpkin patch in my autonomous car where there is a man sitting in a chair in the middle of a field. how does the AI know where to go?

I am giving you a real life scenario that i experience every year. there are no lanes, nor signs, nor paths, it is a field. how does the AI navigate this?


Surur t1_jdxri6v wrote

What makes you think a modern AI can not solve this problem?

So I gave your question to chatgpt and all its guesses were spot on.

And this was its answer on how it would drive there - all perfectly sensible.

And this is the worst it will ever be - the AI agents are only going to get smarter and smarter.


speedywilfork t1_jdy1kdc wrote

>What makes you think a modern AI can not solve this problem?

because you gave it distinct textual clues to determine an answer. Pumpkin patch. table. sign. it didnt determine anything on its own. you did all of the thinking for it. this is the point i am making. it can't do anything on its own.

if i say to a human "lets go to the pumpkin patch". we all get in the car. drive to the location, see that man in the field, drive to the man in the field, that is taking tickets, not the man directing traffic. and we park. all i have to verbalize is "lets go to the pumpkin patch"

An AI on the other hand i have to tell it "lets go to the pumpkin patch" then when we get there i have to say "drive to the man sitting at the table, not the man directing traffic, when you get there stop next to the man, not in front or behind the man" then you pay, now you say "now drive over to the man directing traffic, follow his gestures he will show you where to park" (assuming it can follow gestures).

All the AI did was follow commands, it didnt "think" at all, because it can't. do you realize how annoying this would become after a while? an average human would be better and could perform more work.


Surur t1_jdy3nm7 wrote

Gpt4 is multimodal. In the very near future you will be able to feed it a video feed and it won't need any text descriptions.

Anyway, if you don't think the current version is smart enough, just wait for next year.


speedywilfork t1_je067dv wrote

you don't understand, in my example it HAS a video feed. how do you think it see the guy in the field? i am presenting a forward looking scenario. i have been developing AI for 20 years. i am not speculating here. i am telling you what is factual. it isn't coming next year, it isn't coming at all. there is no way to program for things like "initiative" and that is what is required to take AI to the next level. everything is a command to AI, it has no initiative. it drives to the field and stops, because to it, the task is complete. it got us to the pumpkin patch. task complete. now what? you have to feed it the next task, that's what. it won't do it on it's own


Surur t1_je074un wrote

> everything is a command to AI, it has no initiative. it drives to the field and stops, because to it, the task is complete.

Sure, but a fully conscious and intelligent human taxi driver would do the same.

AIs are perfectly capable of making multi-step plans, and of course when they come to the end of the plan they should go dormant. We don't want AIs driving around with no one in command.


speedywilfork t1_je09cgt wrote

>Sure, but a fully conscious and intelligent human taxi driver would do the same.

but not me driving myself, and that is the point. my point is we won't have level 5 autonomy in anything outside of designated routes and possibly taxis. there are things that an AI will never be able to do, and a human can do them infinitely better. so my AI might drive me to the pumpkin patch, them i will take over.

>We don't want AIs driving around with no one in command

this is exactly why they will be stuck at the point they are right now and won't take over tons of jobs like everyone is claiming. they are HELPERS, nothing more. they can't reason, they can't think, they can't discern, they don't have initiative. people will soon realize initiative is the trait of a human that they are really looking for. not performing simple tasks that have to be babysat on a constant basis.


longleaf4 t1_je05vwd wrote

I'd agree with you if we were just talking about gpt3. Gpt4 is able to interpret images and could probably suceed at biying tickets in your example. Not computer vision, interpretation and understanding.

Show it a picture of a man holding balloons and ask it what would happen if you cut the strings in the picture, and it can tell you the balloons will fly away.

Show it a disorganized line leading to a guy in a chair and tell it it needs to figure out where to buy tickets, it probably can.


speedywilfork t1_je07y85 wrote

no it can't. as i have told many people on here. i have been developing AI for 20 years. i am not speculating, i am EXPLAINING what is possible and what isn't. so far the GPT 4 demos are things that are expected, nothing impressive.

>and tell it it needs to figure out where to buy tickets, it probably can.

i want it to do it without me having to tell it. that is the point you are missing.


longleaf4 t1_je09b8h wrote

I've seen a lot of cynicism from the older crowd that has been trying to make real progress in the field. I've also seen examples from researchers that have explained why it shows advancement we never could have expected.

I wonder how much of it is healthy skepticism and how much is arrogance.


speedywilfork t1_je0b9uc wrote

>it shows advancement we never could have expected

this simply isn't true, everything AI is doing right now has been expected, or it should have been expected. anything that can be learned will be learned by AI. anything that has a finite outcome it will excel at. anything that doesn't have a finite outcome. it will struggle with. it isn't arrogance it is simply the way it works. it is like saying i am arrogant for claiming humans wont be able to fly like birds. nope, that's just reality


longleaf4 t1_je10fgu wrote

It seems like an inability to consider conflicting thoughts and the assumption that current knowledge is the pinnacle of understanding is a kind of arrogant way to view a developing field that no one person has complete insight to.

To me it seems kind of like saying Fusion power will never be possible. Eventually you're going to be wrong and it is more ofna question of when pur current understanding is broken.

The AI claim is that a breakthrough has occurred and only time can say if that is accurate or overly optimistic. Pretending breakthroughs can't happen isn't going to help anything though. It's just not a smart area to make a lot of assumptions about right now.


speedywilfork t1_je2rdub wrote

AI can't process abstract thoughts. it will never be able to, because there is no way to teach it, and we don't even know how humans can understand abstract thoughts. this is the basis for my conclusion. if it can't be programmed AI will never have that ability.


acutelychronicpanic t1_jdtpxnz wrote

It definitely handles most abstractions I've thrown at it. Have you seen the examples in the paper?


speedywilfork t1_jdvbrrx wrote

i would venture to guess you didn't really present it with a true abstraction.


acutelychronicpanic t1_jdvg9r2 wrote

If you don't want to go look for yourself, give me an example of what you mean and I'll pass the results back to you.


speedywilfork t1_jdvnee1 wrote

here is the problem. "intelligence" has nothing to do with regurgitating facts. it has to do with communication or intent. so if i ask you "what do you think about coffee" you know i am asking about preference. not the origin of coffee, or random facts about coffee. so if you were to ask a human "what do you think about coffee" and they spit out some random facts. then you say "no thats not what i mean, i want to know if you like it" then they spit out more random facts. would you think to yourself. "damn this guy is really smart." i doubt it. you would likely think "whats wrong with this guy". so if something can't identify intent and return a cogent answer. it isnt "intelligent".


acutelychronicpanic t1_jdvog5q wrote

Current models like GPT4 specifically and purposefully avoid the appearance of having an opinion.

If you want to see it talk about the rich aroma and how coffee makes people feel, ask it to write a fictional conversation between two individuals.

It understands opinions, it just doesn't have one on coffee.

It'd be like me asking you how you "feel" about the meaning behind the equation 5x + 3y = 17

GPT4's strengths have little to do with spitting facts, and more to do with its ability to do reasoning and demonstrate understanding.


leaky_wand t1_jdvt5o9 wrote

5x + 3y = 17 is satisfying because there is one and only one answer using positive integers


speedywilfork t1_jdvue1k wrote

>GPT4's strengths have little to do with spitting facts, and more to do with its ability to do reasoning and demonstrate understanding.

I am not talking about an opinion, i am referring to intent. if it cant determine "intent" it can neither reason nor understand. Humans can easily understand intent, AI can't.

as an example if i go to a small town and I am hungry. i find a local and ask "i am not from around here and looking for a good place to eat" they understand the intent of my question isnt the taco bell on the corner. they understand i am asking about a local eatery that others call "good". An AI would just spit out a list of restaurants, but that wasnt the intent of the question. therefore it didnt understand.


acutelychronicpanic t1_jdxbhx8 wrote

It can infer intent pretty effectively. I'm not sure how to convince you of that, but I've been convinced by using it. It can take my garbled instructions and infer what is important to me using the context in which I ask it.


speedywilfork t1_jdxkn3c wrote

It doesnt "infer" it takes textual clues and makes a determination based on a finite vocabulary. it doesnt "know" anything it just matches textual patterns to a predetermined definition. it is really rather simplistic. The reason AI seems so smart is because humans do all of the abstract thinking for them. we boil it down to a concrete thought then we ask it a question. however if you were to tell an AI "go invent the next big thing" it is clueless, impotent, and worthless. AI will help humans achieve great things, but the AI can't achieve great things by itself. that is the important point. it won't do anything on its own, and that is the way people keep framing it.

I can disable an autonomous car by making a salt circle around it or using tiny soccer cones. this proves that the AI doesn't "know" what it is. how do i "explain" to an AI that some things can be driven over and others can't. there is no distinction between salt, painted line, and wall to an AI, all it sees is "obstacle".


acutelychronicpanic t1_jdxpq6j wrote

You paint all AI with the same brush. Many AI systems are as dumb as you say because they are specialized to only do a narrow range of tasks. GPT-4 is not that kind of AI.

AI pattern matching can do things that only AI and humans can do. Its not as simple as you imply. It doesn't just search some database and find a response to a similar question. There is no database if raw data inside it.

Please go see what people are already doing with these systems. Better yet, go to the sections on problem solving in the following paper and look at these examples:

Your assumptions and ideas of AI are years out of date.


speedywilfork t1_jdxyi6c wrote

why when i ask specific questions all i get is a straw man? this in itself proves that i am correct. I have been involved with AI development for 20 years. i understand every single model and type there is to be known. my ideas arent out of date. they are true. i am future looking here, and imagining a AI like Chat GPT to be paired with other systems. if i were to take into something like a coffee shop and ask it "is this a coffee shop?" it very likely would fail to get the answer correct. to an AI a coffee shop is a series of traits. it could not distinguish a coffee shop with a camera crew in it. from a fake coffee shop on a movie set. it couldnt distinguish an unbranded starbucks, from a unbranded mcdonalds. but you and i could, because a coffee shop is a concept, not a thing, it involves mood, feeling, and setting. and pattern recognition won't help it.

>AI pattern matching can do things that only AI and humans can do. Its not as simple as you imply. It doesn't just search some database and find a response to a similar question.

can a circle of small soccer cones disable an autonomous AI?


acutelychronicpanic t1_jdy378r wrote

20 years? You must be pretty well informed on recent developments then. I didn't go into detail because I assumed you've seen the demonstrations of GPT4.

If I can assume you've seen the GPT4 demos and read the paper, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how it can perform well on reasoning tasks its never seen before and reason about what would happen to a bundle of balloons in an image if the string was cut.

What about its test results? Many of those tests are not about memorization, but rather applying learned reasoning to novel situations. You can't memorize raw facts and pass an AP bio exam. You have to be able to use and apply methods to novel situations.

Idk. Maybe we are talking past each other here.


speedywilfork t1_je059or wrote

>I'd love to hear your thoughts on how it can perform well on reasoning tasks its never seen before and reason about what would happen to a bundle of balloons in an image if the string was cut.

I am sure you already know all of this, but It isnt really reasoning, i knows, i knows because it learned. anything that can be learned will eventually be learned by AI, anything and everything. So all of these tasks that appear to be impressive, to me, are just expected. So far AI hasnt done anything that is unexpected. but anything that has a finite outcome, like chess, Go, poker, starcraft, you name it, AI will beat a human, it won't even be close. but it doesnt "reason" it knows all of the possible moves that can ever be played. you show it a picture and ask it what is funny about it. it know that "atypical" things are considered "funny" by humans. so you show it a picture of the Eiffel tower wearing a hat, it can easily determine what is "funny". Even though it doesn't know what "funny" even means.

on the other hand tasks that are open ended and have no finite set of outcomes, like this...

AI looks really, really, dumb. because in this scenario, real reasoning is required. a 5 year old child would be able to pick out these soldiers. these are the types of experiments i am interested in, because it will help us to know where AI can reasonably be applied and where it can't.

Why can't an AI pick out these soldiers and a 5 year old can? because an AI just sees objects, a 5 year old understands intent. a 5 year old understands that a person is intending to fool them, so they discern that it is a person inside a cardboard box. There is no way to teach an AI to recognize intent. because intent is an abstraction, and AI can understand abstractions


acutelychronicpanic t1_je0nzdb wrote

The current generation of AI does not use search to solve problems. That's not how neural networks work.

Go was considered impossible for AI to win for the reasons you suggested it is expected. There are too many possibilities for an AI to consider them all.

You misunderstand these systems fundamentally.


speedywilfork t1_je2qkbo wrote

>The current generation of AI does not use search to solve problems. That's not how neural networks work.

I never said they used search, it depends on the AI, but many still do use search with other protocols that augment it. they don't rely entirely on search but search is still a part of the algorithm.

>Go was considered impossible for AI to win for the reasons you suggested it is expected. There are too many possibilities for an AI to consider them all.

this is completely false. the original Go algorithm was taught on random games of Go, it had millions of moves built into its dataset. then it played itself millions of times. but the neural networks simply augmented the Monte Carlo Tree Search, it likely could not have won without search.

i don't literally mean it has a database of every potential move ever. i mean it builds this as it plays. however fundamentally it literally knows every move, because at any given point it knows all of the possible moves.


RedditFuelsMyDepress t1_jdvtk6c wrote

Not the best example. Why would an AI have an opinion on coffee if it can't even drink it?


speedywilfork t1_jdvwbt4 wrote

i am not talking about its opinion, i am talking about intent. i want it to know what the intention of my question is regardless of the question. i just gave this as example to someone else...

as an example if i go to a small town and I am hungry. i find a local and ask "i am not from around here and looking for a good place to eat" they understand the intent of my question isnt the taco bell on the corner. they understand i am asking about a local eatery that others call "good". An AI would just spit out a list of restaurants, but that wasnt the intent of the question. therefore it didnt understand.

If i point at the dog bed even my dog knows what i intend for it to do. it UNDERSTANDS, an AI wouldnt.


RedditFuelsMyDepress t1_jdvzdtf wrote

Well I tried asking the coffee question from ChatGPT and this is what it said:

"As an artificial intelligence language model, I do not have personal preferences or opinions. However, I can provide some general information about coffee.

Coffee is a popular beverage enjoyed by millions of people around the world. It is made by brewing roasted coffee beans, which contain caffeine, a natural stimulant that can help increase alertness and reduce fatigue. Coffee also contains antioxidants and other beneficial compounds that may offer health benefits when consumed in moderation.

However, it is important to note that excessive consumption of coffee can have negative effects on health, such as increasing the risk of insomnia, anxiety, and digestive issues. Additionally, some people may be more sensitive to the effects of caffeine than others, and may experience negative side effects even with moderate consumption.

Overall, whether or not to consume coffee is a personal choice that depends on an individual's preferences, health status, and caffeine tolerance. It is always a good idea to consult with a healthcare professional to determine if coffee consumption is right for you."

In that first paragraph it does acknowledge the intent of your question, but just says that it isn't able to answer it. The facts about coffee being spit out I believe is just part of the directives given to ChatGPT.


speedywilfork t1_jdw5jyl wrote

but that is the problem. it doesnt know intent, because intent is contextual. if i was standing in a coffee shop the question means one thing, on coffee plantation another, in a business conversation something totally different. so if you and i were discussing things to improve our business and i asked "what do you think about coffee" i am not asking about taste. AI can't distinguish these things.


RedditFuelsMyDepress t1_jdwpkfj wrote

>AI can't distinguish these things.

I'm not sure how true that is though. Even with GPT3, it would actually take into account the context of the whole conversation instead of just the most recent sentence when I asked something.

Hard to say how well it would handle itself in a real-world environment though since it's just a chat-bot atm.


IluvBsissa t1_jdtjxpg wrote

Doesn't matter if it understands or not, as long as it does the damn job.


crunchycrispy t1_jdudoni wrote

it’s actually very important, or else it will be unreliable and unpredictable in tons of hidden ways.


datsmamail12 t1_jduwxh7 wrote

If it's only limitation is physics and mathematics,just throw it a bunch of papers of that and you'd still wouldn't be impressed by it. But when this technology finally becomes self aware,you'll be the one that said I knew it from the beginning that it was AGI. Do you even comprehend how minor of a problem is not knowing how to do mathematics when you can write novelty,do multitasking, understand every question and answer properly,this is AGI that hasn't been programmed to know what maths are. Id you take a kid make it grow up in a jungle,never show it maths or physics,only show it language,you think that it won't have intelligence? No,it just means that it hasn't been trained on these specific's just as intelligent as you and I are. Well not me,I'm an idiot,but you people at least.


speedywilfork t1_jdvivi6 wrote

i am not impressed by it because everything it does, is expected. but it will never become self aware, because it has no ability to do so. self aware isnt something you learn, self aware is something you are. it is a trait, traits are assigned, not learned. even in evolution the environment is what assigns traits. AI have no environmental influence outside of their programmers. therefore the programmers would have to assign them the "self aware trait"


GrandMasterPuba t1_jdtzkxu wrote

Here, let me correct the title for you:

>Microsoft suggests they want more money so make up wild claims about the technology they have a majority stake in to drive up marketing and hype.