> AGI, by definition, in its name Artificial General Intelligence implies / directly states that this type of AI is not some dumb AI that requires training for all its knowledge, a general intelligence merely needs to be taught how to count, the basic rules of logic, and the basic rules of a single human language. From those basics all derivable logical human sciences will be rediscovered by that AGI

That's not how natural general intelligences work, though.

▲

bsenftner 3 days ago | parent [-]

Are you sure? Do you require dozens, to hundreds, to thousands of examples before you understand a concept? I expect no. That is because you have comprehension that can generalize a situation to basic concepts which you apply to other situations without effort. You comprehend. AI cannot do that: get the idea from a few, under a half dozen examples if necessary. Often a human needs 1-3 examples before they can generalize any concept. Not AI.

▲

Davidzheng 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think they're saying people generally don't learn language or mathematics by learning the basic rules and deducing everything else

▲

Jensson 3 days ago | parent [-]

Humanity did exactly that though, so an AGI should be capable of the same feat given enough time.

▲

mofeien 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

There is the concept of n-t-AGI, which is capable of performing tasks that would take n humans t time. So a single AI system that is capable of rediscovering much of science from basic principles could be classified as something like 10'000'000humans-2500years-AGI, which could already be reasonably considered artificial superintelligence.

▲

dragonwriter 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Humanity did exactly that though

No, it mostly didn't, it continued (continues, as every human is continuously interlacing “training” and “inferencing”) training on large volumes of ground truth for a very long time, including both natural and synthetic data; it didn't reason everything beyond some basic training on first principles.

At a minimum, something that looks broadly like one of today's AI models would need either a method of continuously finetuning its own weights with a suitable evaluation function or,if it was going to rely on in-context learning, would need many orders of magnitude larger context, than any model today.

And that's not a “this is enough to likely work” thing, but “this is the minimum for the their to even be a plausible mechnanism to incorporate the information necessary for it to work” one.

	▲	beefnugs 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah this original poster is only talking about the "theoretical" part of intelligence, and somehow completely forgetting about the "practical experimental" which is the only way to solidify and improve any theoretical things it comes up with

▲

adastra22 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Humanity did it through A LOT of collective trial and error. Evolution is a powerful algorithm, but not a very smart one.

▲

andreasmetsala 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Billions of humans did that over hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe it would only take thousands of years for AGI?

▲

stickfigure 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Any human old enough to talk has already experienced thousands of related examples of most everyday concepts.

For concepts that are not close to human experience, yes humans need a comically large number of examples. Modern physics is a third-year university class.

▲

idiotsecant 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You spend every waking minute for 20 years or so accumulating training data. You don't learn addition and then independently discover vector calculus.

▲

dns_snek 3 days ago | parent [-]

Individual people don't but we did it as a species. Any purported AGI should be capable of doing the same.

▲

dragonwriter 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

So you are now claiming that individual humans are not general intelligences and the only natural general intelligence is humanity as a unit?

▲

Timwi 2 days ago | parent [-]

I have not seen any evidence of either. We have no way of knowing if we are “definitely” a true general intelligence, whether as individuals or as a civilization. If there is a concept that we are fundamentally incapable of conceptualizing, we'll never know.

On top of that, true general intelligence requires a capacity for unbounded growth. The human brain can't do that. Humanity as a civilization can technically do it, but we don't know if that's the only requirement for general intelligence.

Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Both as individuals and as a global civilization we keep running into limitations that we can't overcome. As an individual, I will never understand quantum mechanics no matter how hard I try. As a global civilization, we seem unable to organize in a way that isn't self-destructive. As a result we keep making known problems worse (e.g. climate change) or maintaining a potential for destruction (e.g. nuclear weapons). And that's only the problems that we can see and conceptualize!

I don't think true general intelligence is really a thing.

	▲	bsenftner a day ago \| parent [-]
		I honestly believe it is an issue of communications, and our civilization does not take the skill of effective communications seriously, so a huge amount of information lost is really the defining factor of our entire civilization. We are incredible problem solvers, that have to repeat discovery of solutions over and over again because we fail to communicate their solutions or situations.

▲

ACCount37 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

...if you run millions of instances of it for hundreds of thousands of years.

Either the bar of general intelligence set by humans is not very high, or humans are not "generally intelligent" at all. No third option there.

▲

dns_snek 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Either the bar of general intelligence set by human is not very high, or humans are not "generally intelligent" at all. No third option there.

Based on... what?

	▲	ACCount37 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Based on anatomically modern humans existing for over a hundred thousand years - without inventing all the modern technology and math and science until the far end of that timetable.