François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]
(youtube.com)
13 points by sandslash 3 days ago
I feel like I'm the only one who isn't convinced getting a high score on the ARC eval test means we have AGI. It's mostly about pattern matching (and some of it ambiguous even for humans what the actual true response aught to be). It's like how in humans there's lots of different 'types' of intelligence, and just overfitting on IQ tests doesn't in my mind convince me a person is actually that smart.
by qoez 14 minutes ago
I think the people behind the ARC Prize agree that getting a high score doesn't mean we have AGI. (They already updated the benchmark once to make it harder.) But an AGI should get a similarly high score as humans do. So current models that get very low scores are definitely not AGI, and likely quite far away from it.
by yorwba 6 minutes ago
You're not the only one. ARC-AGI is a laudable effort, but its fundamental premise is indeed debatable:
"We argue that human cognition follows strictly the same pattern as human physical capabilities: both emerged as evolutionary solutions to specific problems in specific evironments" (from page 22 of On the Measure of Intelligence)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.01547 by whiplash451 5 minutes ago
Roughly speaking, the job of a medical doctor is to diagnose the patient - and then, after the diagnosis is made, to apply the healing from the book, corresponding to the diagnosis.
The diagnosis is pattern matching (again, roughly). It kinda suggests that a lot of "intelligent" problems are focused on pattern matching, and (relatively straightforward) application of "previous experience". So, pattern matching can bring us a great deal towards AGI. by avmich 7 minutes ago
by 19 minutes ago
by 3 days ago