On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 3:33 PM PGC <multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your excitement about Claude 3.5 Sonnet's performance is understandable. > It's an impressive development, but it's crucial to remember that beating > benchmarks or covering a wide range of conversational topics does not > equate to general intelligence. I wish we lived in a context where I could > encourage you to provide evidence for your claims about AI capabilities and > future predictions but Claude, OpenAI, etc are... not exactly open. > > Then we could discuss empirical data and trends instead of betting: I > don't know what the capability ceiling is, for narrow AI development behind > closed doors now or in the next years, nor have I pretended to. > Wide/general is not narrow/specific and brittle. But I am happy for you if > you feel that you can converse intelligently with it; I know what you mean. > For my taste its a tad obsequious and not very original, i.e. I am > providing all the originality of the conversation that some large > corporation is sucking up without getting paid for it. > > > *I don't want clever conversationI never want to work that hard, mmm - *Billy > Joel > PGC, Would you consider the aggregate capabilities of all AIs that have been created to date, as a general intelligence? In the spirit of what Minsky said here: "Each practitioner thinks there’s one magic way to get a machine to be smart, and so they’re all wasting their time in a sense. On the other hand, each of them is improving some particular method, so maybe someday in the near future, or maybe it’s two generations away, someone else will come around and say, ‘Let’s put all these together,’ and then it will be smart." -- Marvin Minsky I wrote that human general intelligence, consists of the following abilities: - Communicate via natural language - Learn, adapt, and grow - Move through a dynamic environment - Recognize sights and sounds - Be creative in music, art, writing and invention - Reason with logic and rationality to solve problems I think progress exists across each of these domains. While the best humans in their area of expertise may beat the best AIs, it is arguable that the AI systems which exist in these domains are better than the average human in that area. This article I wrote in 2020 is quite dated, but it shows that even back then, we have machines that could be called creative: https://alwaysasking.com/when-will-ai-take-over/#Creative_abilities_of_AI If we could somehow clobber together all the AIs that we have made so far, and integrate them into a robot body. Would that be something we could regard as generally intelligent? And if not, what else would need to be done? Jason > On Monday, June 24, 2024 at 11:02:05 PM UTC+2 John Clark wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:00 AM PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> *> And for everybody here assuming the Mechanist ontology, which implies >>> the Strong AI thesis, i.e. the assertion that a machine can think,* >>> >> >> I don't know about everybody but I certainly have that view because the >> only alternative is vitalism, the idea that only life, especially human >> life, has a special secret sauce that is not mechanistic, that is to say >> does not follow the same laws of physics as non-living things. And that >> view has been thoroughly discredited since 1859 when Darwin wrote "The >> Origin Of Species". >> >> >> >>> *> I am curious as to why any of you would assume that general >>> intelligence and mind would arise from a narrow AI.* >>> >> >> If a human could converse with you as intelligently as Claude can in such >> a wide number of unrelated topics you would never call his range of >> interest narrow, but because Claude's brain is hard and dry and not soft >> and squishy you do. I'll tell you what let's make a bet, I bet that an AI >> will win the International Mathematical Olympiad in less than 3 years, >> perhaps much less. I also bet that in less than 3 years the main political >> issue in every major country will not be unlawful immigration or crime or >> even an excess in wokeness, it will be what to do about AI which is taking >> over jobs at an accelerating rate. What do you bet? >> >> >> John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis >> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> >> bwu >> >> >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4bb09c16-61df-4b07-a024-eae5eafffb90n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4bb09c16-61df-4b07-a024-eae5eafffb90n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUguj7h%2BTME5cASv9HQ2SmThgW7yN7qo-mwiraCc1kQfdg%40mail.gmail.com.
