Re:Ask HN: How do you personally define 'AGI'?
by jasonjmcghee on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @11:58AM
(#35889241)
Yes- being able to reflect on its own thoughts.
You could argue being able to observe and think about what was just said aligns with ReAct (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.03629.pdf) - maybe a tweak to directly assessing a previous thought, and modifying output / thought process based on the assessment accordingly would help, but I'm not sure that's quite enough.
If it can't ask "why" and step back through why it thinks something, I think we'll keep having the confident hallucination problem- rather than "I don't know".
But maybe that's touching on the quality of AGI.
Is "reasoning" a necessity for the base definition?
You could argue being able to observe and think about what was just said aligns with ReAct (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.03629.pdf) - maybe a tweak to directly assessing a previous thought, and modifying output / thought process based on the assessment accordingly would help, but I'm not sure that's quite enough.
If it can't ask "why" and step back through why it thinks something, I think we'll keep having the confident hallucination problem- rather than "I don't know".
But maybe that's touching on the quality of AGI.
Is "reasoning" a necessity for the base definition?