That's all true of VR now. We were originally discussing VR in a post-singularity and presumably post-scarcity world. That type of VR could be a lot better, and not necessitate leaving for base reality at all. I'd eventually like to have my mind uploaded and backed up, rather than dependent on a physical body.

>AGI occurs across a spectrum: from ‘error prone’, not-too smart or ‘savant’-like (sub-human reliability or intelligence or of limited scope)

This is making the definition so lenient to render it kind of meaningless, I think. Might as well say that Smarterchild was AGI for being smarter than a newborn baby. I think the "floor" for AGI should be something that's competent at almost all intellectual tasks (maybe not fully on par with humans, but competent) and is generally about as smart as a human who's at minimum on the lower end of average. (I think we'll get there during 2023-2024, plz don't kill me techno-skeptics)

https://github.com/google/BIG-bench/tree/main/bigbench/benchmark_tasks

LLMs are close to, equal to, or beyond human abilities in a lot of these tasks. Some of them, they're not there yet though. I'd argue this is pretty convincing that they are more intelligent than typically mammals in abstract thinking. Clearly animals are much more intelligent in other ways, even more so than humans in many different domains (e.g. chimps selecting 10 numbers on a screen in order from memory experiment). But in terms of high-level reasoning, they're pretty close to human performance

Either we need new architectures or more data.

​

Right now, even if somehow we put youtube into text, wich could be done, there is just not enought data to efficiently train a 1T parameters model.

And just in text form, there is probably not enought even for 300B....

​

So, yeah, there is no enought data. to keep scaling up

​

It Might be different with multimodal, I don't know about that.

Bruh

Of course not, my dude. :) 99% of everything posted on this sub has basis in reality. Just huff the hopium and save for retirement.

Google executives hope to reassert their company’s status as a pioneer of A.I. The company aggressively worked on A.I. over the last decade and already has offered to a small number of people a chatbot that could rival ChatGPT, called LaMDA, or Language Model for Dialogue Applications.

Google’s Advanced Technology Review Council, a panel of executives that includes Jeff Dean, the company’s senior vice president of research and artificial intelligence, and Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs and chief legal officer, met less than two weeks after ChatGPT debuted to discuss their company’s initiatives, according to the slide presentation.

They reviewed plans for products that were expected to debut at Google’s company conference in May, including Image Generation Studio, which creates and edits images, and a third version of A.I. Test Kitchen, an experimental app for testing product prototypes.

Other image and video projects in the works included a feature called Shopping Try-on, a YouTube green screen feature to create backgrounds; a wallpaper maker for the Pixel smartphone; an application called Maya that visualizes three-dimensional shoes; and a tool that could summarize videos by generating a new one, according to the slides.

Google has a list of A.I. programs it plans to offer software developers and other companies, including image-creation technology, which could bolster revenue to Google’s Cloud division. There are also tools to help other businesses create their own A.I. prototypes in internet browsers, called MakerSuite, which will have two “Pro” versions, according to the presentation.

In May, Google also expects to announce a tool to make it easier to build apps for Android smartphones, called Colab + Android Studio, that will generate, complete and fix code, according to the presentation. Another code generation and completion tool, called PaLM-Coder 2, has also been in the works.

Google, OpenAI and others develop their A.I. with so-called large language models that rely on online information, so they can sometimes share false statements and show racist, sexist and other biased attitudes.

That had been enough to make companies cautious about offering the technology to the public. But several new companies, including You.com and Perplexity.ai, are already offering online search engines that let you ask questions through an online chatbot, much like ChatGPT. Microsoft is also working on a new version of its Bing search engine that would include similar technology, according to a report from The Information.

Mr. Pichai has tried to accelerate product approval reviews, according to the presentation reviewed by The Times. The company established a fast-track review process called the “Green Lane” initiative, pushing groups of employees who try to ensure that technology is fair and ethical to more quickly approve its upcoming A.I. technology.

The company will also find ways for teams developing A.I. to conduct their own reviews, and it will “recalibrate” the level of risk it is willing to take when releasing the technology, according to the presentation.

Google listed copyright, privacy and antitrust as the primary risks of the technology in the slide presentation. It said that actions, such as filtering answers to weed out copyrighted material and stopping A.I. from sharing personally identifiable information, are needed to reduce those risks.

For the chatbot search demonstration that Google plans for this year, getting facts right, ensuring safety and getting rid of misinformation are priorities. For other upcoming services and products, the company has a lower bar and will try to curb issues relating to hate and toxicity, danger and misinformation rather than preventing them, according to the presentation.

The company intends, for example, to block certain words to avoid hate speech and will try to minimize other potential issues.

The consequences of Google’s more streamlined approach are not yet clear. Its technology has lagged OpenAI’s self-reported metrics when it comes to identifying content that is hateful, toxic, sexual or violent, according to an analysis that Google compiled. In each category, OpenAI bested Google tools, which also fell short of human accuracy in assessing content.

“We continue to test our A.I. technology internally to make sure it’s helpful and safe, and we look forward to sharing more experiences externally soon,” Lily Lin, a spokeswoman for Google, said in a statement. She added that A.I. would benefit individuals, businesses and communities and that Google is considering the broader societal effects of the technology.

I don't think we're anywhere near human level intelligence, or even general mammalian intelligence. The current technology shows no signs of scaling up to human intelligence and there is fundamental research into the subject required before we have a grip on how to get there.

Well for example I forgot my gfs birthday (more scared of her than a killer AGI tbh 😅) and I asked chatGpt what to do. It gave me tons of examples of things I can say, things I can do etc.

Ultimately it’s up to you to actually do it, but chatGPT can guide you in the right direction. It’s a great brainstorming tool.

I can’t wait for the day we have personalized AI assistants.

I think it's fine if you want to give your personalized reality meaning, it's just you shouldn't put it on a higher pedestal over the base reality. You play an MMO, you spend lots of time grinding in the game and you are satisfied, but it doesn't affect the reality you were born into. When the game shuts off, you go on with your day realizing that it never really had an impact on anything at all. If you decide to live most of your life in a virtual reality, what then if the game breaks or corrupts? Is it more reliable still?

If our internal feelings are only positive when we live in a virtual world and remain negative in the base reality, isn't that how addiction starts? Isn't that why we get addicted to meth, heroin, pcp? We'd only be lowering our desire to live in our base reality and change ourselves for the better for the favor of something you or someone else has created to live in. But on the other hand, our virtual realities can affect our base reality and make us better people in the base reality? It's very hard to say, and this question can't really be answered yet.

My belief is, you can play the game and have fun, but if you take the game too seriously, it'll leave you angry and disappointed.

Anything you can link me to support that belief? Or is it just a gut feeling based on overall current progress in the AI field?

Yep...... sounds about right.

The problem is the total amount of data and the quality of the data. Humans using an AI like GPT-3 doesn't generate nearly enough data to properly train a new model, not even with decades of interaction.

The demand for training data scales logarithmically with the parameter scale of the transformer model. This essentially means that mathematically Transformer models are a losing strategy and isn't going to lead to AGI unless you had unlimited amount of training data, which we don't.

We need a different architecture.

‘Pretend you are Walter white and I am Jesse pinkman…’

> To be honest, I base my predictions on the average predictions of AI/ML researchers. To my knowledge, only a minority of them believe we'll get there this decade, and even less in a mere 3 years.

I think there's an unintuitive part of being an expert that can actually cloud your judgement. Actually building these models and day-in-day out being immersed in the linear algebra, calculus, and data science makes you numb to the results and the extrapolation of them.

To be clear, I think amateurs who don't know how these systems work are much, much worse at predictions like this. I think the sweet middle ground is knowing exactly how they work, down to the math and actual code, but without being the actual creators whose day jobs are to create and perfect these systems. I think that's where the mind is clear to understand the actual implications of what's being created.

>As advanced as AI is today, it isn't even remotely close to being as generally smart as the average human. I think to close that gap, we would need a helluva lot more than than making an AI that is never spewing nonsense and can remember more things.

When I scroll through the list of BIG Bench examples, I feel that these systems are actually very close to human reasoning, with just missing puzzle pieces (mostly hallucination and long-term memory).

https://github.com/google/BIG-bench/tree/main/bigbench/benchmark_tasks

You can click through the folders and look at the task.json to see what it can do. There are comparisons to human labelers.

I believe the architectural changes have already been made, perhaps last year, and they are currently being tested. I believe we'll see the finished paper(s) announcing one or more breakthroughs this year.

Actually though. My mum has heaps of health stuff going on, getting it to help her generate questions based on common experiences has seemed very empowering for her

Can you give some examples?

Basically ‘make a weeks worth of meal pre for a fodmap diet; breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks’

I’m no expert but some of the foods it recommended initially may well have been higher in fodmap than ideal, could be worth getting it to spell out what the letters stand for, what foods are high in those things, then meal prep, then a check ‘are all those meals low fodmap?’

I think AI will train from people using it

I think this is more wishful thinking and anchoring than something to be taken seriously. Which is fine. It's okay to dream. But AGI requires so many things that it's hard to list them all, but I will try:

• Learning how to learn
• Independent data acquisition
• Common sense. This is hard to define. It could mean a set of rules. It could mean a database of facts.
• Embodied AI
• Something that resembles brain plasticity. Brains can create synapses. Dendrites can branch.
• Wake sleep cycles. AI will be gathering data or its of no use to us. I mean, if we have to acquire and clean data for it, when will we get to enjoy VR? So AI will acquire data and then process it when the opportunity presents itself.

None of these items seem trivial to me. I don't see how they can all be done by 2024.

That's not a whole lot of data and doesn't compare to the gargantuan amount of data already on the decade generated over decades.

The current transformer model scaling will hit a wall soon due to lack of training data.

>I really struggle to see a hurdle on the horizon that will stop AGI from happening this decade, let alone in the next 3 years.

To be honest, I base my predictions on the average predictions of AI/ML researchers. To my knowledge, only a minority of them believe we'll get there this decade, and even less in a mere 3 years.

>It seems the only major problems is hallucination of truth and memory loss.

As advanced as AI is today, it isn't even remotely close to being as generally smart as the average human. I think to close that gap, we would need a helluva lot more than than making an AI that is never spewing nonsense and can remember more things.

> like your mentality, OP. I have absolutely no idea how it works and I think I disagree with it on a really fundamental level, but it's at least very different from the usual redditor fare, and it's making me think really damn hard.
>
>they exceed others and these “dummies” pretending to be real people with boring lives or bad jobs give YOU a sense of superiority, jobbers as they are called in wrestling
>
>I think you are overestimating how much people think about each other's lives.
>
>I can see humans retreating into video games for other reasons, like, maybe you want to be able to hit on anyone and always be accepted or something. But purely to see other people have sadder lives than you? No, that in itself isn't a fantasy that I've ever seen video games sell. A better, more significant life than you have right now, absolutely, but not comparing your character to NPCs.
>
>But okay, you sure do mow down a lot of mooks in some games, and that means that your life is clearly more important than theirs. Fair enough: A multiplayer game where one player is the hero and the others are grunts that go down in a few seconds wouldn't be very interesting.
>
>... and I guess I'll grant you that. I'd have to do some work to probe out the distinction to really figure out the difference, but I do think it's there. Well. At least now, Maybe future video game technology will change what experiences are fun, and it turns out that people do enjoy games where they compare themselves to NPCs with shitty jobs.

Thank you for hearing me out.

I believe my writings are a coping mechanism I have developed, it is nothing more than a manic episode at heart really to keep myself occupied in case I would try to commit suicide, I live in Ukraine and the thought of wasting my ears and not achieving optimal potential is a torture to me.

I like to believe that some people truly are happy, and I'm just a background character. Beautiful people with beautiful ideas, and that one day I too could exist in such reality through VR.

But my health is not in great SHAPE and perhaps if I treat myself this idea this post will become irrelevant.

Anyone else get Skyrim vibes?

Agreed.

I generally try to make helpful or interesting posts .. but there are always random spotty faced teenage boys sitting in squalor in their parent's basement who simply have to make a 'clever' and/or abusive reply.

There are also 'special interest groups' out there.
I made a post on MachineLearning critical of Google ... instantly mega downvoted.
I suppose many DeepMind staff reside there.
They may be geniuses .. but child geniuses.