upvote
If the new AGI benchmark is "be Einstein/Feynman" then we've hit AGI.
reply
What if it can be Einstein, but can't draw a Pelican, write a solid college-level essay, or fold clothes?

The ability to do a ton of book learning in training, and pull in tons of related context at once, is superhuman in some ways, but lags a lot in others.

reply
> What if it can be Einstein, but can’t draw a Pelican, write a solid college-level essay, or fold clothes?

Then it’s an expert system.

Stephen Hawking wasn’t very good at folding clothes.

The ‘General’ part of the term ‘AGI’ seems like a trap to me, because there will always be new workflows to master. Can Astra one-shot level completion on some yet-to-be-released video game? If no, does that mean it’s not yet ‘Generally’ intelligent?

You won’t get pure ‘general’ intelligence until you find Einstein’s hidden variables and load the state of the entire universe into context.

Meanwhile, building a series of expert systems targeting specific valuable workflows is useful today and seems like it’ll continue to scale to cover huge swathes of economically valuable workflows.

I think that’s the more interesting thing to be measuring. The surface area of useful economic workflows that can be addressed with expert systems built with today’s tech.

Hitting some ‘Artificial Expert Intelligence’ coverage threshold on economically valuable workflows is what will matter for humans well before pure ‘general’ intelligence.

reply
deleted
reply
The only important part of 'general' is the ability to learn from experiential data and update your own model. That's what leads to general capability. Humans can't oneshot any task natively, but we can practice for a while until we uncover often novel methods of accomplishing something.
reply
Adding sibling comments, I think some people may be overestimating how well the median human can draw a pelican, or create an SVG of a pelican (depending if we’re comparing to an image generation model, or SVG generation).
reply
Most people can't draw a bicycle. There was an artist 10 years ago that asked people to sketch a bike, and then turned these sketches into 3D renders - quite funny.

https://mymodernmet.com/gianluca-gimini-velocipedia-bicycles...

https://qz.com/681345/an-artists-3d-renderings-of-bicycles-d...

reply
Laundry folding has become a doable demo for startups, and ChatGPT has been spitting out college essays for years.
reply
How good was Einstein at drawing pelicans on bicycles by writing SVG code?

Checkmate, meatbags.

reply
Pelicans are a solved problem at this point. An open-weight model on my own machine gave me this: https://crimson-jeri-74.tiiny.site/

And the only reason LLMs can't write essays indistinguishable from human output is because they aren't RLHF'ed to write like humans.

Folding clothes isn't an LLM's job but if you were to insist, they could certainly do it, as any number of videos from robotics labs will attest. That particular future is already here but definitely not evenly-distributed.

reply
> Pelicans are a solved problem at this point. An open-weight model on my own machine gave me this

That feels kinda like when I remember seeing Ocarina of Time for the first time, and thinking “oh my god, this looks just like real life…”.

reply
For me it was the wheels. I couldn't stop staring at the wheels... how did it get them so freaking perfect? Mad respect to GLM 5.3.
reply
Wouldn’t that mean producing novel work like relativity and QED?
reply
I would maybe argue that Einstein was the most LLM-like of great thinkers.

A lot of his great discoveries were mostly that he was very knowledgeable about the bleeding edge research in a number of disparate areas, and was able to have the aha moment where he could make the connections for how to integrate them.

A lot of other thinkers who created new fields from scratch are probably way harder for an LLM to crack.

That is very aligned with an LLMs ability to have superhuman knowledge in wide areas.

reply
[dead]
reply
What is novel physics?
reply
I think they mean improve our understanding of physics with new theoretical results or paradigms. Like if it’s 1899, would Astra develop General and Special relativity on its own?
reply
This is as good a time as any to note that we might be closing in on a new conceptual revolution in our own time as it relates to holography and an information centric approach to spacetime. Obviously It's the furthest possible thing from a guarantee, but it has much of the enthusiasm and motivation that string theory had previously enjoyed in prior decades.

So it could be a natural experiment for whether AI can contribute to novel physics. Specifically, there's a big question about weather. Something like our informational understanding of black holes where information inside it is equivalent to information on its boundary (which I'm sure I'm not saying correctly), might be generalized to regular space-time. More people should be freaking out with excitement about this and perhaps it's something to which AI can contribute.

reply
Do you have anywhere you recommend where I can read more on this?
reply
Honestly I don't think I have single great article, though some Quanta ones are ok, and the Wikipedia article is okay.

The best thing I can recommend is what I did, which is ask Claude about the significance of (1) quantum computing error correction, and (2) error correction in black hole holography and research convergence between the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-space-and-time-could-be-a...

Edit: this whole article, despite it's boring title and hook, is maybe the best discussion of holography as a recent and active research frontier.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/if-the-universe-is-a-hologram...

reply
There was symbolic AI programs in the 1980’s that “discovered” Kepler’s laws and the resulting solar system model from just tycho brache’s astronomical observations. That was the the very first “new physics” ever.
reply
i wonder if we could train a modal, and omit all data prior to 1899, and see what happens?
reply
Do you mean after? People do this!! But I think it’s a bit different. It won’t be apples to apples because the data volume I think is just so much different. Maybe there are good experiments for something like this.
reply
as always, as good as its prompt...
reply
I assume solving one of the major open problems of physics?
reply
Would this be possible without it being able to run novel real-world physics experiments autonomously?

(Note: I am not suggesting we let it do this. Please don't, in fact)

reply
AI could discover candidate novel physics without autonomously operating new physical experiments, and humans or instruments can later independently validate the result. This is analogous to how Einstein developed theories whose predictions were confirmed by experiments and observations only years or decades later.
reply
Do we have any examples of an current day AI system introducing a novel concept or perspective. We've got plenty of counterexamples discovered and some theorems proven, but afaik nothing analogous to a new definition.
reply
Why not?
reply
That's how we get AM.
reply
That’s already been done. I know of at least one novel result contributed by Claude to frontier physics. I’m sure there is more.
reply
For it to be like a human it wouldn't just need to solve existing phsyics problems, it would need to push the field forward and introduce new paradigms.
reply
Solving "open problems" will push the field forward.
reply
My comment wasn't very long, yet you somehow still ignored the main part, "and introduce new paradigms". The point is whether it can do everything humans can, entirely new theoretical frameworks and ideas, such as string theory or dark matter, are not coming out of AI at the moment.
reply
Creating new physics is the new AGI goal post
reply