And there we are, on another nudge to the verge of dystopia, to be added to the many that raised in these decades:
> It’s a whole menu of new ventures for a company that recently vowed to ditch distracting side quests. Asked to sum it all up, Brockman described the vision in two words: “personal AGI”. He imagines billions of people with superintelligent personal assistants, just waiting for direction. “You have almost an AGI, maybe soon truly an AGI, in your pocket”, he says. “What is it you want?”
A consultant in presumably a non-anonymous context, owned by an enterprise - an entity that can collect personal information and resides outside one's premises. It takes a huge tidal wave of immaturity to suppose that as aproblematic.
"OpenAI’s charter defines AGI as “highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work.” Its leaders won’t quite declare they’ve reached that threshold. But they no longer speak about it as a distant abstraction. Chief research officer Mark Chen estimated OpenAI is “80% of the way” to AGI. Brockman said that viewed from two years in the future, this may be remembered as the moment AGI was created. Altman told me that OpenAI was “not quite yet” there, but that by the end of the year the company would have an internal system he would call AGI."
When will that internal system make it out to the public? Or should it ever be released to the public is probably the better question...
I mean Open AI has the incentive and history of hyping it up. And the general rule the last 20% would take the same amount of time as they got the first 80%.
But having said that, it is getting ridiculously good and plenty of people find enough value out of AI as of today. In terms of hardware we already knew what the next 3 to 4 years would be like. There seems to be enough work on optimisation to further enhance the model.
OpenAI doesn't have the best-performing public model, but it's an open secret that Astra, the internal model, is better than anything Anthropic has internally.
but even if they do know something we don't why say this publicly? Yes, I get you are trying to boost your evaluation in the ongoing "war" against Anthropic and now XAI but I'm not sure how ready society is for AGI
This reminds me of that time Anthropic publicly admitted that Claude was generating "anxiety" patterns within its neural networks and the worst part is that, instead of acting ethically, they chose to directly manipulate "those vectors" to see what would happen and specially what is happening inside those companies could trigger a legal dilemma in the future we (society) are not prepared to deal with that
Exactly. It is reasonable to believe that AGI will never be built on unchanging data, no matter how many times you iterate over it.
Computers can and probably do already contain essentially all human knowledge, but without a continuous wave of new data to process and respond to then that surfer known as sentience will never have a wave to ride.
Think of the comparisons to human minds. We are constantly assaulted with sight, sound, smell, temperature, gravity, proprioception (the sense of our own bodies in 3 dimensional space), touch, and all of our dozens of other, lesser known senses. We have constant new data input to process in real time and our consciousness sits atop that maelstrom a lonely king.
Further, our brain is a marvel of multiple lobes communicating with each other in a frenzy of bioelectricity, and duplicated, and interconnected amongst the duplication, and our consciousness emerges somewhere in the static to make something conceptually tangible.
I think LLMs and the technology is fascinating, but it is constructed on unchanging data. Maybe it blips close to consciousness from time to time, but I bet they are no closer to achieving AGI than they were to creating positive power fusion energy from Philo Farnsworth's fusor.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but that's how I see things for now.
It is not a matter of sentience or consciousness - that is unrelated to this meaning of Intelligence (for AGI - "solving problems well"). It is that Intelligence implies continuous reflection, which brings continuous refinement of the set of ideas (of judgements) - which requires a dynamic DB.
That «completely made up number» was said by "Chief research officer Mark Chen", and that is news - curious, and somehow interesting. It is in the article, and probably more notable than 'Inside OpenAI’s Reboot'.
> Amid all this, company leaders believe they have arrived at the cusp of a milestone that could change the course of humanity: the creation of artificial general intelligence, or AGI. OpenAI’s charter defines AGI as “highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work.” Its leaders won’t quite declare they’ve reached that threshold. But they no longer speak about it as a distant abstraction. Chief research officer Mark Chen estimated OpenAI is “80% of the way” to AGI. Brockman said that viewed from two years in the future, this may be remembered as the moment AGI was created. Altman told me that OpenAI was “not quite yet” there, but that by the end of the year the company would have an internal system he would call AGI
The submitter is relatively new here (maybe he has not consulted the guidelines that much yet), but I will give a token of my understanding on why one would replace the original title with the "Oh, by the way, <outlandish statement>".
> for that matter
Nah. Every intellectual dealing with Intelligence should have an idea at least of what is missing ("if that should be a cat where are the ears"). Construct a set difference between an ideal human cognitive system and current LLMs, and you will get an idea approximating AGI.
And there we are, on another nudge to the verge of dystopia, to be added to the many that raised in these decades:
> It’s a whole menu of new ventures for a company that recently vowed to ditch distracting side quests. Asked to sum it all up, Brockman described the vision in two words: “personal AGI”. He imagines billions of people with superintelligent personal assistants, just waiting for direction. “You have almost an AGI, maybe soon truly an AGI, in your pocket”, he says. “What is it you want?”
A consultant in presumably a non-anonymous context, owned by an enterprise - an entity that can collect personal information and resides outside one's premises. It takes a huge tidal wave of immaturity to suppose that as aproblematic.
From the author:
"OpenAI’s charter defines AGI as “highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work.” Its leaders won’t quite declare they’ve reached that threshold. But they no longer speak about it as a distant abstraction. Chief research officer Mark Chen estimated OpenAI is “80% of the way” to AGI. Brockman said that viewed from two years in the future, this may be remembered as the moment AGI was created. Altman told me that OpenAI was “not quite yet” there, but that by the end of the year the company would have an internal system he would call AGI."
When will that internal system make it out to the public? Or should it ever be released to the public is probably the better question...
I mean Open AI has the incentive and history of hyping it up. And the general rule the last 20% would take the same amount of time as they got the first 80%.
But having said that, it is getting ridiculously good and plenty of people find enough value out of AI as of today. In terms of hardware we already knew what the next 3 to 4 years would be like. There seems to be enough work on optimisation to further enhance the model.
Claiming AGI when they don't even have the best performing LLM out is a bit bold :p
OpenAI doesn't have the best-performing public model, but it's an open secret that Astra, the internal model, is better than anything Anthropic has internally.
This sounds like something you say to get your evaluation up as you inch closer towards IPO...
Yeah, that's right. But you know they can say whatever they want :D
Sounds like they haven't heard of the Pareto principle.
Yep I think they are underestimating the last 20% of work required here, unless they know something we don't...
They know they have to keep lying to relax the inevitable AI bubble crash
that's true
but even if they do know something we don't why say this publicly? Yes, I get you are trying to boost your evaluation in the ongoing "war" against Anthropic and now XAI but I'm not sure how ready society is for AGI
This reminds me of that time Anthropic publicly admitted that Claude was generating "anxiety" patterns within its neural networks and the worst part is that, instead of acting ethically, they chose to directly manipulate "those vectors" to see what would happen and specially what is happening inside those companies could trigger a legal dilemma in the future we (society) are not prepared to deal with that
Yeah and the romans were 80% of the way to a steam engine. It only took another 2000 years to complete it.
AGI on static Neural Networks?!
The list of requirements to have AGI is pretty long, and already that first one inconsistency makes the "hmmmm" bell sound.
Exactly. It is reasonable to believe that AGI will never be built on unchanging data, no matter how many times you iterate over it.
Computers can and probably do already contain essentially all human knowledge, but without a continuous wave of new data to process and respond to then that surfer known as sentience will never have a wave to ride.
Think of the comparisons to human minds. We are constantly assaulted with sight, sound, smell, temperature, gravity, proprioception (the sense of our own bodies in 3 dimensional space), touch, and all of our dozens of other, lesser known senses. We have constant new data input to process in real time and our consciousness sits atop that maelstrom a lonely king.
Further, our brain is a marvel of multiple lobes communicating with each other in a frenzy of bioelectricity, and duplicated, and interconnected amongst the duplication, and our consciousness emerges somewhere in the static to make something conceptually tangible.
I think LLMs and the technology is fascinating, but it is constructed on unchanging data. Maybe it blips close to consciousness from time to time, but I bet they are no closer to achieving AGI than they were to creating positive power fusion energy from Philo Farnsworth's fusor.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but that's how I see things for now.
It is not a matter of sentience or consciousness - that is unrelated to this meaning of Intelligence (for AGI - "solving problems well"). It is that Intelligence implies continuous reflection, which brings continuous refinement of the set of ideas (of judgements) - which requires a dynamic DB.
The title is bullshit. Actual title:
>> Inside OpenAI’s Reboot
You changed the title and made it 93% more misleading. That completely made up number is meaningless. So's "AGI", for that matter.
> That completely made up number
That «completely made up number» was said by "Chief research officer Mark Chen", and that is news - curious, and somehow interesting. It is in the article, and probably more notable than 'Inside OpenAI’s Reboot'.
> Amid all this, company leaders believe they have arrived at the cusp of a milestone that could change the course of humanity: the creation of artificial general intelligence, or AGI. OpenAI’s charter defines AGI as “highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work.” Its leaders won’t quite declare they’ve reached that threshold. But they no longer speak about it as a distant abstraction. Chief research officer Mark Chen estimated OpenAI is “80% of the way” to AGI. Brockman said that viewed from two years in the future, this may be remembered as the moment AGI was created. Altman told me that OpenAI was “not quite yet” there, but that by the end of the year the company would have an internal system he would call AGI
The submitter is relatively new here (maybe he has not consulted the guidelines that much yet), but I will give a token of my understanding on why one would replace the original title with the "Oh, by the way, <outlandish statement>".
> for that matter
Nah. Every intellectual dealing with Intelligence should have an idea at least of what is missing ("if that should be a cat where are the ears"). Construct a set difference between an ideal human cognitive system and current LLMs, and you will get an idea approximating AGI.