That’s not really what I had in mind, but I had in mind something less clear than I thought. The spirit is about “can the AI come up with novel concepts”,
I think one reason I think the current paradigm is “general enough, in principle”, is that I don’t think “novel concepts” is really The Thing. I think creativity / intelligence mostly is about is combining concepts, it’s just that really smart people are
a) faster in raw horsepower and can handle more complexity at a time
b) have a better set of building blocks to combine or apply to make new concepts (which includes building blocks for building better building blocks)
c) have a more efficient search for useful/relevant building blocks (both metacognitive and object-level).
Maybe you believe this, and think that “well yeah, it’s the efficient search that’s the important part, which we still don’t actually have a real working version of?”?
It seems like the current models have basically all the tools a moderately smart human have, with regards to generating novel ideas, and the thing that they’re missing is something like “having a good metacognitive loop such that they notice when they’re doing a fake/dumb version of things, and course correcting” and “persistently pursue plans over long time horizons.” And it doesn’t seem to have zero of either of those, just not enough to get over some hump.
I don’t see what’s missing that a ton of training on a ton of diverse, multimodal tasks + scaffoldin + data flywheel isn’t going to figure out.
Differences between people are less directly revelative of what’s important in human intelligence. My guess is that all or very nearly all human children have all or nearly all the intelligence juice. We just, like, don’t appreciate how much a child is doing in constructing zer world.
the current models have basically all the tools a moderately smart human have, with regards to generating novel ideas
Why on Earth do you think this? (I feel like I’m in an Asch Conformity test, but with really really high production value. Like, after the experiment, they don’t tell you what the test was about. They let you take the card home. On the walk home you ask people on the street, and they all say the short line is long. When you get home, you ask your housemates, and they all agree, the short line is long.)
I don’t see what’s missing that a ton of training on a ton of diverse, multimodal tasks + scaffoldin + data flywheel isn’t going to figure out.
I think one reason I think the current paradigm is “general enough, in principle”, is that I don’t think “novel concepts” is really The Thing. I think creativity / intelligence mostly is about is combining concepts, it’s just that really smart people are
a) faster in raw horsepower and can handle more complexity at a time
b) have a better set of building blocks to combine or apply to make new concepts (which includes building blocks for building better building blocks)
c) have a more efficient search for useful/relevant building blocks (both metacognitive and object-level).
Maybe you believe this, and think that “well yeah, it’s the efficient search that’s the important part, which we still don’t actually have a real working version of?”?
It seems like the current models have basically all the tools a moderately smart human have, with regards to generating novel ideas, and the thing that they’re missing is something like “having a good metacognitive loop such that they notice when they’re doing a fake/dumb version of things, and course correcting” and “persistently pursue plans over long time horizons.” And it doesn’t seem to have zero of either of those, just not enough to get over some hump.
I don’t see what’s missing that a ton of training on a ton of diverse, multimodal tasks + scaffoldin + data flywheel isn’t going to figure out.
Differences between people are less directly revelative of what’s important in human intelligence. My guess is that all or very nearly all human children have all or nearly all the intelligence juice. We just, like, don’t appreciate how much a child is doing in constructing zer world.
Why on Earth do you think this? (I feel like I’m in an Asch Conformity test, but with really really high production value. Like, after the experiment, they don’t tell you what the test was about. They let you take the card home. On the walk home you ask people on the street, and they all say the short line is long. When you get home, you ask your housemates, and they all agree, the short line is long.)
My response is in the post.