OpenAI is an AI capabilities firm & nonprofit. They spend almost all their time pushing the forefront of generalist AI reasoning. The reason they have not let an AGI proper out of the box already is because they do not have an AGI yet. Not sure what you expected of them, exactly, especially when it comes to their smaller models.
GPT isn’t an AGI but it’s certainly an AI. In this case, it seems they let it use a web browser and provide information for queries that will be sent to outside servers.
My understanding is that “AGI” means AI that is able to do anything that a human can. GPT-3 can do well at some tasks (writing sentences) but presumably isn’t very good at driving a car or many other common human tasks.
GPT-3 can play Turing Test, and I think Turing was right to exclude things like “driving a car” from the definition of AGI. To quote:
We do not wish to penalise the machine for its inability to shine in beauty competitions, nor to penalise a man for losing in a race against an aeroplane.
Given the success of transformer models at every other subfield of AI, I’m sure a GPT-like model would make a decent self driving car.
To be clear, I mean an AI which can pilot a car correctly on US roads 99% of seconds, which has already been achieved by many companies including Waymo, Tesla and Comma.ai. None of these companies have “self driving cars” in the sense of a legal, marketable L5 car, because the standard for legal, marketable and L5 is way beyond 99%.
OpenAI is an AI capabilities firm & nonprofit. They spend almost all their time pushing the forefront of generalist AI reasoning. The reason they have not let an AGI proper out of the box already is because they do not have an AGI yet. Not sure what you expected of them, exactly, especially when it comes to their smaller models.
:goose10:
GPT isn’t an AGI but it’s certainly an AI. In this case, it seems they let it use a web browser and provide information for queries that will be sent to outside servers.
How is GPT-3 not general? It seems like the I should be more in doubt than the G.
My understanding is that “AGI” means AI that is able to do anything that a human can. GPT-3 can do well at some tasks (writing sentences) but presumably isn’t very good at driving a car or many other common human tasks.
GPT-3 can play Turing Test, and I think Turing was right to exclude things like “driving a car” from the definition of AGI. To quote:
Makes sense. I’ve always been using “G” more literally as “general”, but it’s certainly possible that this is unusual.
Given the success of transformer models at every other subfield of AI, I’m sure a GPT-like model would make a decent self driving car.
To be clear, I mean an AI which can pilot a car correctly on US roads 99% of seconds, which has already been achieved by many companies including Waymo, Tesla and Comma.ai. None of these companies have “self driving cars” in the sense of a legal, marketable L5 car, because the standard for legal, marketable and L5 is way beyond 99%.
Meant AGI when I said AI, sorry.