>When someone makes an AGI out of an LLM then I'll be proven wrong, I suppose. I'm just sharing my personal view on things.
You're going to have to define AGI first.
Not sure where I claimed this.
> Protein creation is not just _poof_ new proteins.
Not sure where I claimed this either.
> There are steps and interactions and you don't need to train on all of that.
I agree with this statement as well. Have you read what I wrote? Proteins in chains can indeed be used to predict other proteins in chains, even though you never trained the model on the biological processes of protein generation. Just like words in sentences can be used to predict other words in sentences, even though you never trained the model on the neurological processes of human speech. I'm not disputing any of that. What I'm disputing is that it will eventually become an AGI.
> You're going to have to define AGI first.
I'm using the definition provided verbatim in the linked article: "We believe superintelligence—AI vastly smarter than humans—could be developed within the next ten years."
>I don't believe LLM's will ever become AGI, partly because I don't believe that training on the outputs of human intelligence (i.e. human-written text) will ever produce something equivalent to human intelligence.
Now you say
>I'm using the definition provided verbatim in the linked article: "We believe superintelligence—AI vastly smarter than humans—could be developed within the next ten years."
AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is Super Intelligence. I've never seen posts moved so fast in my life. So are you not a General Intelligence then ?
This is the problem with these discussions. Everyone so sure of something they can't even properly articulate.
I'm asking you what a Language Model needs to do to be considered AGI and it needs to be something every human can do, else it's not a test of general intelligence.
Obviously, a prerequisite to becoming more intelligent than a human, is to become equally intelligent as a human. I don't believe LLM's will ever be equal in intelligence to humans, ergo I also don't believe they will become superior in intelligence to human (which is how the linked article defines "AGI").
I'm not agitated.
>Obviously, a prerequisite to becoming more intelligent than a human, is to become equally intelligent as a human. I don't believe LLM's will ever be equal in intelligence to humans, ergo I also don't believe they will become superior in intelligence to human (which is how the linked article defines "AGI").
You have still not answered my question. saying "equivalent to human intelligence" is easy. The real question is equivalent how ? What are you saying it needs to do ? or is this just a vague "i'll know it when i see it" assertion ?
If it's so easy to say "GPT-4 is not agi" then it should be very easy to say what it can't do that disqualifies it
what is it that you're looking for it to do to be called one ?
No, it's actually exceptionally easy to quantify. Take a look at the current leaderboard for LLM reasoning capabilities: https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_leaderb...
Okay, you've at least given me numbers. You're still not answering my question. Which number signals agi ?
Let's look at the top model in that list (which again isn't close to the best performing LLM) that you say isn't agi. so are you telling me that every human can do those tests and perform better than every model on that list. Is that what you are saying ? because i can tell you right now you're wrong.
Now lets see how GPT-4 performs.
ARC - 96.3%, MMLU - 86.4%, HellaSwag - 95.3%, WinoGrande - 87.5%, GSM-8K - 92.0%, TruthfulQA - 60%
Ave - 86.25%
Is this worse than every human that can take these tests. Is this even worse than most ? I can tell you it's not. So again, why is GPT-4 not agi ?
This is a strange bar to require clearing. Every human is not even capable of reading, or speaking, or thinking at all. But those humans who can't are not the benchmark of general human intelligence.
Let's make this simple - the average human IQ is around 100. Will an LLM ever have an IQ of 100? No, I don't believe they'll ever even be close.
How can we gauge this abstract reasoning ability? Lots of ways. Try to teach them mathematics. Try to teach them physics. Try to explain to an LLM the rules to a card game and have it actually play the game with you accurately.
It's simple. If you're going to disqualify a potential general intelligence because of a particular task solving ability, it better be something every general intelligence can do.
Now let's forget every comparison with the blind, disabled and so on. Let's compare with humans who according to you are "capable of reading, or speaking, or thinking at all ", what's the magic number? Do you really think every human capable of doing all three will hit 86% or more average?, because again, you are wrong. Numerous replies and you still won't tell me what number will signify agi. That says a lot.
>Let's make this simple - the average human IQ is around 100. Will an LLM ever have an IQ of 100? No, I don't believe they'll ever even be close.
Well you are wrong
https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09196
What's the next post ?
>Try to teach them mathematics.
Ok. https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09066
https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00304
>Try to explain to an LLM the rules to a card game and have it actually play the game with you accurately.
Have you tried to do this with GPT-4 ?
https://chat.openai.com/share/4a92c752-b5bb-4a07-beed-f57786...
That said, By that test, I guess some dyslexics aren't general intelligences then.
https://chat.openai.com/share/90c7a9e2-77d0-4049-8eff-4312ca...
You see the difference?
I mean... this is just obviously false. If the data you're training on isn't causally predictive, you may occasionally find good-enough patterns for a particular use case (i.e. you may occasionally guess better than a coin flip which direction the stock market goes) but you aren't going to accurately model anything, and certainly not well enough to create an AGI that makes intelligent decisions.
Words in sentences (and, indeed, proteins in a sequence) are causally predictive of each other - the grammar and semantics of one word tends to dictate what words are likely to surround it. So LLM's are very good at writing, and that is certainly useful! But that's just not the same as human intelligence.
When someone makes an AGI out of an LLM then I'll be proven wrong, I suppose. I'm just sharing my personal view on things.