←back to thread

OpenAI, Google and Anthropic are struggling to build more advanced AI

(www.bloomberg.com)
625 points lukebennett | 1 comments | 13 Nov 24 13:28 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
irrational ◴[14 Nov 24 18:03 UTC] No.42139106[source]▶
> The AGI bubble is bursting a little bit

I'm surprised that any of these companies consider what they are working on to be Artificial General Intelligences. I'm probably wrong, but my impression was AGI meant the AI is self aware like a human. An LLM hardly seems like something that will lead to self-awareness.

replies(18): >>42139138 #>>42139186 #>>42139243 #>>42139257 #>>42139286 #>>42139294 #>>42139338 #>>42139534 #>>42139569 #>>42139633 #>>42139782 #>>42139855 #>>42139950 #>>42139969 #>>42140128 #>>42140234 #>>42142661 #>>42157364 #
Taylor_OD ◴[14 Nov 24 18:05 UTC] No.42139138[source]▶
I think your definition is off from what most people would define AGI as. Generally, it means being able to think and reason at a human level for a multitude/all tasks or jobs.

"Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) refers to a theoretical form of artificial intelligence that possesses the ability to understand, learn, and apply knowledge across a wide range of tasks at a level comparable to that of a human being."

Altman says AGI could be here in 2025: https://youtu.be/xXCBz_8hM9w?si=F-vQXJgQvJKZH3fv

But he certainly means an LLM that can perform at/above human level in most tasks rather than a self aware entity.

replies(3): >>42139407 #>>42139669 #>>42139677 #
nomel ◴[14 Nov 24 18:48 UTC] No.42139677[source]▶
> than a self aware entity.

What does this mean? If I have a blind, deaf, paralyzed person, who could only communicate through text, what would the signs be that they were self aware?

Is this more of a feedback loop problem? If I let the LLM run in a loop, and tell it it's talking to itself, would that be approaching "self aware"?

replies(1): >>42140260 #
layer8 ◴[14 Nov 24 19:38 UTC] No.42140260[source]▶
Being aware of its own limitations, for example. Or being aware of how its utterances may come across to its interlocutor.

(And by limitations I don’t mean “sorry, I’m not allowed to help you with this dangerous/contentious topic”.)

replies(3): >>42140889 #>>42141298 #>>42141640 #
revscat ◴[14 Nov 24 21:15 UTC] No.42141298{4}[source]▶
Plenty of humans, unfortunately, are incapable of admitting limitations. Many years ago I had a coworker who believed he would never die. At first I thought he was joking, but he was in fact quite serious.

Then there are those who are simply narcissistic, and cannot and will not admit fault regardless of the evidence presented them.

replies(1): >>42142791 #
1. layer8 ◴[15 Nov 24 00:27 UTC] No.42142791{5}[source]▶
Being aware and not admitting are two different things, though. When you confront an LLM with a limitation, it will generally admit having it. That doesn't mean that it exhibits any awareness of having the limitation in contexts where the limitation is glaringly relevant, without first having confronted it with it. This is in itself a limitation of LLMs: In contexts where it should be highly obvious, they don't take their limitations into account without specific prompting.