True, I didn’t include my review of the other article they reference in that last sentence (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.11610). That article also contains no evidence to support their claims. I’ll have my full review of AI 2027 finished in a few weeks.
Even granting what you said about the gap between the first and last sentence, the sentence in which the article is referenced is: “Self-improvement for general intelligence had seen minor successes before.”
The report referenced clearly has nothing to do with “general intelligence”: they test the model on 5 narrow algorithmic tasks. And they explicitly and repeatedly say that they have provided no evidence for the model’s applicability in wider tasks.
The AI 2027 authors reference the report apparently as evidence of AI’s successes in self-improvement in “general intelligence”. The report contains no such evidence. So the report is misrepresented by the AI 2027 authors
True, I didn’t include my review of the other article they reference in that last sentence (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.11610). That article also contains no evidence to support their claims. I’ll have my full review of AI 2027 finished in a few weeks.
Even granting what you said about the gap between the first and last sentence, the sentence in which the article is referenced is: “Self-improvement for general intelligence had seen minor successes before.”
The report referenced clearly has nothing to do with “general intelligence”: they test the model on 5 narrow algorithmic tasks. And they explicitly and repeatedly say that they have provided no evidence for the model’s applicability in wider tasks.
The AI 2027 authors reference the report apparently as evidence of AI’s successes in self-improvement in “general intelligence”. The report contains no such evidence. So the report is misrepresented by the AI 2027 authors