Comment by reasonabl_human
6 hours ago
> 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.
> 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?
If a model can't learn on their own to play some new game just as well as humans do, it's not AGI.
It's okay if they would take some hours or days of learning (like humans might), but if they can't do it at all during their normal operation, that's not general intelligence
> You won’t get pure ‘general’ intelligence until you find Einstein’s hidden variables and load the state of the entire universe into context.
But humans have general intelligence. AGI is about matching human ability, and we know this is possible in principle because brains exist
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.
Therefore: the current transformer architecture is fundamentally incapable of AGI because the models have no mutable long-term memory.
You only have weights (large immutable memory), or context (small mutable memory).
Humans have mutable long-term memory: I can learn a new skill, adapt an old skill to new information, or learn new knowledge today that I couldn't perform/didn't know yesterday. I don't have a training cutoff.
Context engineering is an attempt to paper over this limitation. You can get really far with context engineering and huge models, but you will never get to AGI because there are many tasks where humans' mutable long-term memory outperforms.
For example, a human can invent a new musical instrument and then learn how to play the instrument they just invented. That's inference (inventing an instrument) leading to training (neuroplasticity). Humans have the ability to train our NNs with considerably fewer training samples. Everything that you can do with transformers is in one causal direction: training -> inference.
So if we take a huge with enough compute (CPUs, b200s, petabytes of SSDs), we install on it both the Astra, and the toolsuite to incorporate new sensory inputs (threads/sessions), camera, microphone, temp sensors, the lot, into a new version of the model. This model is then swapped for the old model, or traffic slowly brought over, or even adjusting weights in place.
Then my hypothesis is that thing as a whole could achieve AGI.
This feels like a very close approximation on how we humans evolve our brain. By encountering new experiences/sensations, classifying them as negative or positive to us, filling it away in neurons. Or by training motor skills etc. In the end we get more connections between neurons in our brain and we are capable of more.
Bingo, LLM architecture just does not lend itself to becoming AGI. They can get really good, sure, but they will always struggle with novel input and scenarios.
The more training data that is shoved in to them, the more they'll seem to solve novel situations, but in reality it'll be things that exist in the training data.
1 reply →