What any of what you said has to do with abstract reasoning?
Re:From GPT-4 to AGI: Counting the OOMs
by TaylorAlexander on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @01:21AM
(#40923943)
What isn’t abstract about looking at an obstacle course and then imagining how you will move your body? Or looking at someone’s face and imagining how they feel. Isn’t that abstract?
Also: https://sl.bing.net/ep8K7FWVAHY
The quality of your argument is very low. You didn't even bother to check yourself.
Re:From GPT-4 to AGI: Counting the OOMs
by TaylorAlexander on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @01:25AM
(#40923964)
That’s fair. In the interview LeCun uses the example of flying from San Francisco to New York and he asserts that these systems are not good at hierarchical reasoning. I’m no expert in this field so I take him at his word but maybe it warrants further explanation.
He also says that such a system wouldn’t be familiar with how to actually move through the world because we don’t have good datasets for how to do so. The rest of what I said still stands. These systems aren’t good at things for which we don’t have massive datasets, and they’re not able to devote different amounts of thinking time to different problems.
Also if you ask them a question they can provide you one answer with very little thinking, and then if that’s not good enough they can devote more time to thinking about the answer before they answer again. They can devote arbitrary levels of thinking to any problem depending on what is needed. They can continuously take in new data and continually update their world view throughout their entire existence based on this new information.
There’s actually a huge list of things current autoregressive approaches to AI cannot do, but they can be hard to describe and people don’t like to talk about them so many people actually don’t understand how limited the current systems are.
Here’s a great video where Yann Lecun talks about the limits of autoregressive approaches to AI with many examples:
https://youtu.be/1lHFUR-yD6I