←back to thread

Alignment is capability

(www.off-policy.com)
106 points drctnlly_crrct | 1 comments | 08 Dec 25 13:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.268s | source
Show context
delichon ◴[08 Dec 25 14:26 UTC] No.46192569[source]▶
> Miss those, and you're not maximally useful. And if it's not maximally useful, it's by definition not AGI.

I know hundreds of natural general intelligences who are not maximally useful, and dozens who are not at all useful. What justifies changing the definition of general intelligence for artificial ones?

replies(4): >>46192735 #>>46193614 #>>46193797 #>>46194679 #
throw310822 ◴[08 Dec 25 15:57 UTC] No.46193797[source]▶
At some point "general AI" stopped being the opposite of "narrow AI", that is AI specialised for a single task (e.g. speech or handwriting recognition, sentiment analysis, protein folding, etc.) and became practically synonymous with superintelligence. ChatGPT 3.5 is already a general AI based on the old definition, as it is already able to perform a variety of tasks without any specific pre-training.
replies(1): >>46194501 #
marcosdumay ◴[08 Dec 25 16:46 UTC] No.46194501[source]▶
> ChatGPT 3.5 is already a general AI based on the old definition

It's not. It's a query-retrieval system that can parse human language. Just like every LLM.

replies(3): >>46194650 #>>46194965 #>>46196382 #
1. delichon ◴[08 Dec 25 16:57 UTC] No.46194650[source]▶
It's a device for channeling the intelligence inherent in human language. The fact that its intelligence is located more in its human data than its artificial algorithms doesn't make its output less generally intelligent.