[HN Gopher] Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework
___________________________________________________________________
Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework
Author : surprisetalk
Score : 86 points
Date : 2026-03-18 11:44 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.google)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.google)
| wcgan7 wrote:
| Cool that we are at a stage where it is meaningful to start
| measuring progress toward AGI. Something I am wondering on the
| philosophical side: are we ever going to be able to tell if the
| system really "understands" and "perceives" the world?
| quantummagic wrote:
| We'll get as close as we can with anything else, like trying to
| decide if a given human really "understands" and "perceives"
| the world.
| Schlagbohrer wrote:
| I thought of this when I saw that the final criteria in the
| list is Social Understanding. Might be a lot of humans who
| can't measure up to sentience by these parameters! ;-)
|
| (and I wonder what my ADHD friends would think of the
| Executive Function requirement as well...)
| beeflet wrote:
| I think the accomplishment of difficult real-world tasks
| requires that it does so. But I hope that we're able to reach a
| level of introspection to produce a satisfactory answer (and
| avoid doomsday), but I think that requires a more educated
| question. The premise of conciousness as we understand it now
| could be misleading.
|
| In the same way that studying alien life would reveal more
| about how life in general canonicially forms and exists.
| Studying this artificial intellegence could unlock a new
| understanding of our own minds.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > Perception: extracting and processing sensory information from
| the environment
|
| > Generation: producing outputs such as text, speech and actions
|
| > Attention: focusing cognitive resources on what matters
|
| > Learning: acquiring new knowledge through experience and
| instruction
|
| > Memory: storing and retrieving information over time
|
| > Reasoning: drawing valid conclusions through logical inference
|
| > Metacognition: knowledge and monitoring of one's own cognitive
| processes
|
| > Executive functions: planning, inhibition and cognitive
| flexibility
|
| > Problem solving: finding effective solutions to domain-specific
| problems
|
| > Social cognition: processing and interpreting social
| information and responding appropriately in social situations
|
| --------------------
|
| I prefer:
|
| a) working memory (hold & manipulate information in mind
| simultaneously)
|
| b) processing speed (how quickly & efficiently execute basic
| cognitive operations, leaving more resources for complex tasks)
|
| c) fluid intelligence (ability to reason through novel problems
| without relying on prior knowledge)
|
| d) crystallized intelligence (accumulated knowledge and ability
| to apply learned skills)
|
| e) attentional control / executive function (focus, suppress
| irrelevant information, switch between tasks, inhibit impulsive
| responses)
|
| f) long-term memory and retrieval (ability to form strong
| associations and retrieve them fluently)
|
| g) spatial / visuospatial reasoning (mental rotation,
| visualization, navigating abstract spatial relationships)
|
| h) pattern recognition & inductive reasoning (this is the most
| primitive and universal expression of intelligence across
| species, the ability to extract regularities from noisy data, to
| generalized from examples to rules)
| Lerc wrote:
| _> a) working memory (hold & manipulate information in mind
| simultaneously)_
|
| What counts as 'in mind' is undefined. You can succeed by
| declaring anything manipulatable counts as in.
|
| _> c) fluid intelligence (ability to reason through novel
| problems without relying on prior knowledge)_
|
| reasoning presupposes the conclusion. Solve is better. When a
| solution is given you cannot declare it to be not a solution.
| People can and do argue about if a answer was arrived at by
| reasoning even when they agree on the correctness.
|
| _> g) spatial / visuospatial reasoning (mental rotation,
| visualization, navigating abstract spatial relationships)_
|
| I have aphantasia, why should you exclude something from being
| intelligent because it cannot do something that I also cannot
| do.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > I have aphantasia, why should you exclude something from
| being intelligent
|
| Intelligence exists on a spectrum. Amongst different species
| (living and non-living) and also within species (amongst
| individuals).
|
| Some dimensions of intelligence are more important that
| others in different contexts, so a systems that might be
| "dumber" than another in one context, can be smarter in a
| different context.
| hbarka wrote:
| The two guys from Google get to set the rules?
|
| How will they measure wisdom or common sense (ability to make an
| exception)?
|
| https://youtu.be/lA-zdh_bQBo
| Lerc wrote:
| They are not _the_ rules. They are _some_ rules.
| qsort wrote:
| Those are crowdsourced benchmarks. We're calling them "cognitive"
| and "AGI" now, though. It's similar to when they made a benchmark
| and called it "GDP".
|
| To be clear, I think we've seen very fast progress, certainly
| faster than I would have expected, I'm not trying to peddle some
| "wall" rhetoric here, but I struggle to see how this isn't just
| the SWE-bench du jour.
| Ygg2 wrote:
| AGI is defined now as "whatever makes 1 trillion dollars of
| profit".
| tyleo wrote:
| It still seems like something is missing from all these
| frameworks.
|
| I feel like an average human wouldn't pass some of these metrics
| yet they are "generally intelligent". On the other hand they also
| wouldn't pass a lot of the expert questions that AI is good at.
|
| We're measuring something, and I think optimizing it is useful,
| I'd even say it is "intelligent" in some ways, but it doesn't
| seem "intelligent" in the same way that humans are.
| sho_hn wrote:
| On the other hand, AI being very good at everything while
| select humans may only be very good at some things is likely
| also a quality we want to retain (or, well, achieve).
| snowwrestler wrote:
| If a human cares about the work, they can often outperform an
| LLM because they will keep at it until the work meets their
| standard of quality. Whereas the LLM will guess and then wait
| to be corrected. As a recent tweet I saw said: it's amazing how
| fast the software bottleneck went from writing code, to
| reviewing code.
|
| I think we'll need to split the concept of intelligence into
| the capacity to accomplish a task and the capacity to conceive
| and prompt a task. If the former is called "intelligence" then
| LLMs are intelligent.
|
| But what then do we call the latter? I think the idea of an AI
| that can independently accomplish great things is where people
| talk about "general" intelligence. But I think we need a label
| more specific, that covers this idea that successful humans are
| not just good at doing things, they originate what should be
| done and are not easy to dissuade.
| fluoridation wrote:
| >I think we'll need to split the concept of intelligence into
| the capacity to accomplish a task and the capacity to
| conceive and prompt a task. If the former is called
| "intelligence" then LLMs are intelligent.
|
| Huh? No. "The capacity to accomplish a task" is not
| intelligence. By that definition, a washing machine is
| intelligent.
| ArekDymalski wrote:
| It's good to have some kind of benchmark at least to structure
| the ongoing, fruitless discussion around "are we there already?".
|
| However I must admit that including the last point that is
| partially hinting at the emotional or rather social intelligence
| surprised me. It makes this list go beyond usual understanding of
| AGI and moves it toward something like AGI-we-actually-want. But
| for that purpose this last point isn't ok narrow, too specific.
| And so is the whole list.
|
| To be actually useful the AGI-we-actually-want benchmark should
| not only include positive indicators but also a list of unwanted
| behaviors to ensure this thing that used to be called alignment I
| guess.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Capability and alignment are orthogonal.
|
| Stalin was AGI-level.
| ArekDymalski wrote:
| "Stalin was AGI-level" perfectly catches the core of my
| concerns. Thanks!
| gotwaz wrote:
| Unwanted behavior or what? Like why does a rose need so many
| petals eh? What about a peacock and all those feathers? Why
| should anyone dance in the shower? Or dance at all? The rabbit
| hole is deep Alice.
| lvoudour wrote:
| _Social cognition: processing and interpreting social information
| and responding appropriately in social situations_
|
| Is social cognition really a measure of intelligence for non-
| social entities?
| lnenad wrote:
| It is not. Why is that relevant to social entities?
| lvoudour wrote:
| How well you interact with other members of a society
| increases your chances of procreation, survival, knowledge
| acquisition, ie. it makes sense as _a_ measure of
| intelligence
| LogicFailsMe wrote:
| It's a pretty ambiguous definition. The most powerful man
| in the world right now is not someone I consider a role
| model for social cognition and yet there he is with the
| football for the second time demonstrating grandmaster
| skill at social cognition to get there.
| lvoudour wrote:
| You don't have to be empathetic and nice, just good at
| navigating society.
| LogicFailsMe wrote:
| So in all seriousness with a bit of snark: Do you want a
| malevolent AGI? Because "good at navigating society" as
| the only benchmark here is how you get a malevolent
| AGI...
|
| Evidence: cuckoos and cheaters all the way down the
| evolutionary ladder as a winning strategy and arms race
| against the hard workers.
| lvoudour wrote:
| I don't like a$$holes but they do exist and they are part
| of our species, ergo intelligent. My opinion of them
| doesn't change the fact
| LogicFailsMe wrote:
| Yes, but we have a choice about whether the AGI is an
| a$$h0l3 or not. That's the difference here. You do see
| that right?
| lnenad wrote:
| I agree 100%.
| doginasuit wrote:
| An AI designed to interact with humans is a social entity. Its
| performance will depend on its ability to understand social
| information.
| wewewedxfgdf wrote:
| AGI feels like a vanity project.
|
| Who cares about AGI? Honestlky what's the gain.
|
| Maybe Google could actually make Gemini good instead of being
| about 10 miles behind Claude instead of trying to make AGI
| because of - well some reason - cause they want to be famous.
| zug_zug wrote:
| I'm sorry what even is this? Giving $10k rewards for significant
| advancements toward "AGI"?
|
| What does "making a framework" even mean, it feels like a nothing
| post.
|
| When I think of what real AGI would be I think:
|
| - Passes the turing test
|
| - Writes a New York Times Bestseller without revealing it was
| written by AI
|
| - Writes journal articles that pass peer review
|
| - Wins a Nobel Prize
|
| - Writes a successful comedy routine
|
| - Creates a new invention
|
| And no, nobody is going to make an automated kaggle benchmark to
| verify these. Which is fine, because an LLM will never be AGI. An
| LLM can't even learn mid-conversation.
| ixtli wrote:
| They're slowly redefining AGI so they can use it for more
| marketing. If you showed someone from 1960 our LLMs from and
| told them "this is AI" I think they'd be astounded but a little
| confused because "artificial intelligence" definitely carried a
| very clear meaning in literature and media. Now it is marketing
| terminology and we're no closer to having a meaningful
| definition for the word intelligence.
| paganel wrote:
| > They're slowly redefining AGI so they can use it for more
| marketing.
|
| If they don't do that then those trillions of dollars that
| support their current share price will most probably
| evaporate, so there are very big incentives for them to just
| outright try and re-create reality (like what we usually
| meant when we were thinking about artificial intelligence).
| sourcegrift wrote:
| Grok recently created a cancer vaccine for a dog that reduced
| tumor size by 75%
| 10xDev wrote:
| Severely misleading statement.
| ahoka wrote:
| I find it very interesting about the Turing test that as
| chatbots improve, so do humans get better at recognizing them.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| I get the feeling that the original post was also written using
| LLMs, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
|
| If an LLM like this is really intelligent, at the very least,
| I'd expect it to be able to invent.
|
| For example, train an LLM on a dataset only containing
| knowledge from before nuclear energy was invented, and see if
| it can invent nuclear energy.
|
| But that's the problem: they're not really training the model
| on intelligence, they're training it on knowledge. So if you
| strip away the knowledge, you're left with almost nothing.
| voxleone wrote:
| >> An LLM can't even learn mid-conversation.
|
| There's an implicit assumption that scaling text models alone
| gets us to human-like intelligence, but that seems unlikely
| without grounding in multiple sensory domains and a unified
| world model.
|
| What's interesting is that if we do go down that route
| successfully, we may get systems with something like internal
| experience or agency. At that point, the ethical frame changes
| quite a bit.
| pocketarc wrote:
| When people imagined AI/AGI, they imagined something that can
| reason like we can, except at the speed of a computer, which we
| always envisioned would lead to the singularity. In a short
| period of time, AI would be so far ahead of us and our existing
| ideas, that the world would become unrecognizable.
|
| That's not what's happening here, and it's worth remembering: A
| caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent
| as any of us here today, despite not having language or
| technology, or any knowledge.
|
| In Carolyn Porco's words: "These beings, with soaring
| imagination, eventually flung themselves and their machines into
| interplanetary space."
|
| When you think of it that way, it should be obvious that LLMs are
| not AGI. And that's OK! They're a remarkable piece of technology
| anyway! It turns out that LLMs are actually good enough for a lot
| of use cases that would otherwise have required human
| intelligence.
|
| And I echo ArekDymalski's sentiment that it's good to have
| benchmarks to structure the discussions around the "intelligence
| level" of LLMs. That _is_ useful, and the more progress we make,
| the better. But we're not on the way to AGI.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| The amount of things LLMs _can_ do is insane.
|
| It's interesting to me how much effort the AI companies (and
| bloggers) put into claiming they can do things they can't, when
| there's almost an unlimited list of things they actually _can_
| do.
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| for example?
| boca_honey wrote:
| Claiming they can be reliable lawyers.[1]
|
| Claiming they can give safe, regulated financial advice.
| [2]
|
| Claiming you can put your whole operation on autopilot with
| minimal oversight and no negative consequences. [3]
|
| [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-
| releases/2024/09/...
|
| [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/generative-ai-
| exaggeration-o...
|
| [3] https://www.answerconnect.com/blog/business-tips/ai-
| customer...
| orphea wrote:
| Claiming they will replace software engineers in 6-12
| months, every 6 months [4]
|
| [4] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/anthropic-ceo-
| predicts-ai-mod...
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| so you're saying Ai can do all those things?
|
| or that you can't read that GP was talking about what Ai
| CAN do?
| next_xibalba wrote:
| Well, for starters, they definitively passed the Turing
| test a few years ago. The fact that many regard them as
| equivalent in skill to a junior dev is also, IMO, the stuff
| of science fiction.
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| they passed, sure
|
| how do you market that as a product that is needed by
| other people?
|
| there are already companies that advertise Ai date
| partners, Ai therapists and Ai friends - and that gets a
| lot of flame about being manipulative and harmful
| imtringued wrote:
| This reminds me of "Devin". You know, the first "AI software
| engineer", which had the hype of the day but turned into a
| huge flop.
|
| They had ridiculous demos of Devin e.g. working as a
| freelancer and supposedly earning money from it.
| mlmonkey wrote:
| It looks like the company (Cognition) is actively hiring
| (20+ job openings last I checked). That doesn't sound like
| a "flop" to me...
| notTooFarGone wrote:
| When you think about it, every job opening is a flop in
| that sense.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| Think about: why would they be hiring actual human beings
| if Devin actually works? Seems like the purest example of
| "dogfooding"...
| beeflet wrote:
| And many of them so unexpected, given the unusual nature of
| their intellegence emerging from language prediction. They
| excel wherever you need to digest or produce massive amounts
| of text. They can synthesize some pretty impressive solutions
| from pre-existing stuff. Hell, I use it like a thesaurus to
| sus out words or phrases that are new or on the tip of my
| tounge. They have a great hold on the general corpus of
| information, much better than any search engine (even before
| the internet was cluttered with their output). It's much
| easier to find concrete words for what you're looking for
| through an indirect search via an LLM. The fact that, say, a
| 32GB model seemingly holds approximate knowlege of everything
| implies some unexplored relationship between inteligence and
| compression.
|
| What they can't they do? Pretty much anything reliably or
| unsupervised. But then again, who can?
|
| They also tend to fail creatively, given their synthesize
| existing ideas. And with things involving physical intuition.
| And tasks involving meta-knowlege of their tokens (like
| asking them how long a given word is). And they tend to yap
| too much for my liking (perhaps this could be fixed with an
| additional thinking stage to increase terseness before
| reporting to the user)
| saalweachter wrote:
| My current way of thinking about LLMs is "an echo of human
| intelligence embedded in language".
|
| It's kind of like in those sci fi or fantasy stories where
| someone dies and what's left behind as a ghost in the ether
| or the machine isn't actually _them_ ; it's just an echo,
| an shallow, incomplete copy.
| Lwerewolf wrote:
| Just dust and echoes.
|
| (:
| raincole wrote:
| > A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as
| intelligent as any of us here today
|
| In other words, intelligence offers zero evolutionary
| advantage?
| guerrilla wrote:
| It looks like quite the disadvantage, in fact. We're killing
| ourselves and a lot of other stuff in the process.
| danielbln wrote:
| Yes, but also antibiotics, vaccinations, child mortality
| down down down, life expectancy up up up. I wouldn't trade
| for living even 100 years prior compared to today, or
| 500-200k years ago for that matter.
|
| With everything wrong and sick with today's world, let's
| not take the achievements of our species for granted.
| applfanboysbgon wrote:
| You wouldn't make that trade because you are part of the
| last generation (loosely speaking, a collection of
| generations) before it all comes crumbling down. We are
| living unbelievably privileged lives because we are
| burning all of the world's resources to the ground. In
| the process, we're destroying the ecosystem and driving a
| mass extinction event. _Nothing_ about the way we live is
| sustainable long-term. We 're literally consuming
| hundreds of millions of years worth of planet-wide
| resource buildup over a span of a couple of centuries.
| Even if we avoid the worst case scenario, humans 200
| years from now will almost certainly not be able to live
| anywhere near as luxuriously as we do now, unless there's
| a culling of billions. In the actual worst case scenario,
| we may render the planet uninhabitable for anything we
| regard as intelligent life.
|
| In that sense, we have just enough collective
| intelligence to be dangerous and not enough intelligence
| to moderate ourselves, which may very well result in an
| evolutionary deadend that will have caused untold damage
| to life on Earth.
| danielbln wrote:
| That seems both fatalistic and doomerist to me, but time
| will tell. I would assume germ theory would survive
| regardless, as would immunology, so I'd hold on to those
| two at least.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| Doomerism is a kind of religion that goes back as far as
| they eye can see. What's interesting about it is that in
| spite of being perpetually incorrect in its myriad
| predictions, it continues to adapt and attract new
| adherents.
|
| See also (recent only):
|
| - Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb (Malthusian collapse)
|
| - The Club of Rome's The Limits of Growth (resource
| exhaustion)
|
| - Thomas Malthus' Population growth / famine cycle
|
| - James Lovelock's Global warming catastrophe predictions
|
| - Hubbert's (et al) Peak oil economic disaster
|
| - Molina & Rowland's Ozone catastrophe
|
| - Metcalfe's internet collapse
| applfanboysbgon wrote:
| I am not a doomer, nor a Malthusian, merely a realist.
| There are a few points I could make briefly:
|
| - Everything lasts forever, until it doesn't. Ancient
| Egyptian civilization lasted for thousands of years,
| until it didn't. Any Egyptian could point to thousands of
| years of their heritage and say it hasn't ended yet,
| therefore any prediction that it will end is clearly bad
| and dumb. Then it was conquered by Romans, and then by
| Islam, with its language, culture, and religion
| extinguished, extant only in monuments, artifacts and
| history books.
|
| - We have nuclear weapons now. Any prediction of an
| imminent end of human civilization before then would be
| purely religious, but there is a real reason to believe
| things have changed. We are currently in a time of
| relative peace secured by burning resources for
| prosperity, but what happens when those resources run out
| and world conflict for increasingly scarce resources is
| renewed with greater vigor?
|
| - Note that I did not outright predict the end of human
| civilization, merely noted it as a plausible worst-case
| scenario. If civilization continues on more-or-less as it
| is, in the next couple of hundred years, we will drive
| countless more species to extinction. We will destroy so
| much more of our environment with climate change,
| deforestation, strip mining, overfishing, pollution, etc.
| We will deplete water reservoirs and we will deplete oil,
| helium, phosphorus, copper, zinc, and various rare earth
| elements. Not a complete depletion, but they will become
| so scarce as to not be widely available or wasted for the
| general population's benefit. If billions of people are
| still alive then, which I explicitly suggested was a
| possibility, they will as a simple matter-of-fact live
| _much_ less comfortably prosperous lives than us. It will
| not take a great catastrophe to result in a massive
| reduction in living standards, because our current living
| standards are inherently unsustainable.
| mrkstu wrote:
| We also live in an era we can create hydrocarbon fuel
| DIRECTLY from the atmosphere and desalinate fresh water
| in unlimited supply, from power derived directly from the
| sun or atomics.
|
| We also live in a time where the human population, where
| it is most concentrated, is declining rather than
| growing, so far without too disastrous consequences.
|
| Greening of the earth has been happening since the 1980s-
| i.e. about a .3% coverage increase per year in recent
| decades.
|
| Places that were miserable and poor, like China, have
| been lifted to prosperity and leading out in renewable
| tech.
|
| There is much to celebrate and after the recent passing
| of Paul Ehrlich, we should pause and consider just how
| wrong pretty much every prediction he made was.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| Human population is at an all time (and growing) and the
| global mean life expectancy is double if not triple what it
| was in the time of cave men.
| komali2 wrote:
| 200k years just isn't much time for significant evolutionary
| changes considering the human population "reset" a couple
| times to very very small numbers.
| naasking wrote:
| Reich's lab actually found evidence of meaningful genetic
| changes that improved intelligence over the past 10,000
| years, but not so much prior to that:
|
| https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021v1
|
| The advent of agriculture and civilization had many
| powerful selection effects.
| Fricken wrote:
| Our big brains are a recent mutation and haven't been fully
| field tested. They seem like more of a liability than
| anything, they've created more existential risks for us than
| they've put to rest.
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| > A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as
| intelligent as any of us here today, despite not having
| language or technology, or any knowledge.
|
| Doubt. If we would teleport cavemen babies right out of the
| womb to our times, I don't think they'd turn into high IQ
| individuals. People knowledgeable on human history / human
| evolution might now the correct answer.
| komali2 wrote:
| From what I understand, in terms of genetic changes to
| intellectual abilities, there's not much evidence to suggest
| we're so much smarter that your proposed teleported baby
| would be noticeably stupider - at best they'd be on the tail
| of the bell curve, well within a normal distribution. Maybe
| if we teleported ten thousand babies, their bell curve would
| be _slightly_ behind ours. Take a look at "wild children"
| for the very few examples we can find of modern humans
| developed without culture. Seems like above everything, our
| culture, society, and thus education is what makes us smart.
| And our incredibly high calorie food, of course.
| pferde wrote:
| That is exactly what civilization is about - for new
| generations to start not from scratch, but from some
| baseline their parents achieved (accumulated knowledge and
| culture). This allows new generations to push forward
| instead of retreading the same path.
| m_mueller wrote:
| it's impossible to prove the counterfactual (I guess, as I
| imagine we don't have enough gene information that far
| back). But I'd imagine that the high calorie food you can
| get starting with the advent of agriculture is exactly what
| could drive evolution in a certain direction that helps
| brains grow. We've had ~1000 generations since then, that
| should be enough for _some_ change to happen. Our brains
| use up 20% of the body 's energy. Do we know that this was
| already the case during the stone age?
| adrian_b wrote:
| The advent of agriculture did not provide better food, it
| was just the only solution to avoid extinction due to the
| lack of food.
|
| The archaeological evidence shows that for many
| generations the first neolithic farmers had serious
| health problems in comparison with their ancestors.
| Therefore it is quite certain that they did not
| transition to agriculture willingly, but to avoid
| starvation.
|
| Later, when the agriculturalists have displaced
| everywhere the hunter-gatherers, they did not succeed to
| do this because they were individually better fed or
| stronger or smarter, but only because there were much
| more of them.
|
| The hunter-gatherers required very large territories from
| which to obtain enough food. For a given territory size,
| practicing agriculture could sustain a many times greater
| population, and this was its advantage.
|
| The maximum human brain size had been reached hundreds of
| thousands years before the development of agriculture,
| and it regressed a little after that.
|
| There is a theory, which I consider plausible, that the
| great increase in size of the human brain has been
| enabled by the fact that humans were able to extract bone
| marrow from bones, which provided both the high amount of
| calories and the long-chain fatty acids that are required
| for a big brain.
| m_mueller wrote:
| I've seen the bone marrow hypothesis also, which is very
| interesting. Afaik. evidence shows at least that there
| was enough specialization during neolithic era to have
| bone marrow cooks where the hunters delivered their
| bones. Something you wouldn't expect based on just school
| knowledge (at least back in 90s/2000s).
|
| I see your point about agriculture at first degrading
| quality of food. Are you aware of evidence of brain size
| degrading even? Is it visible in the temple bones?
| lucianbr wrote:
| Can you articulate why you think so? This kind of response "I
| just don't agree" reads as zero useful information. At least
| to me.
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| Evolutionary brain development.
|
| We all come from monke, monkey from 10 million years ago
| would definitely be unable to even learn spoken language at
| a basic level. Would he even have the anatomy to produce
| the required sounds? I don't think so.
|
| What about monke from 1 million years ago? 200 thousand
| years ago?
|
| ChatGpt says spoken language only emerged 50k - 200k years
| ago and that a cavemen baby from 200k years ago could learn
| spoken language if brought up by modern parents.
|
| But I prefer human answers over AI slop.
| adrian_b wrote:
| The evolution of the human brain appears to have reached
| its peak long before 200k years ago.
|
| Nowadays humans have smaller brains on average, though
| that is almost certainly not correlated with a lower
| skill in computer programming, but with lower skills in
| the techniques that one needed to survive as a hunter of
| big animals.
| seiferteric wrote:
| How could we know this? AFAIK all we can say is the
| volume of the brain has been relatively stable for that
| long, how can we say the structures of the brain have not
| evolved since then? It seems plausible to me anyway that
| humans could have co-evolved with ideas in a way.
| 21asdffdsa12 wrote:
| Its complicated. It depends.
|
| A human being has the potential for intelligence. For that to
| get realized, you need circumstances, you need culture aka
| "societal" software and the resources to suspend the grind of
| work in formative years and allow for the speed-running of
| the process of knowledge preloading before the brain gets
| stable.
|
| The parents then must support this endeavor under sacrifices.
|
| There is also a ton of chicken-egg catch22s buried in this
| whole thing.
|
| If the society is not rich then no school, instead
| childlabour. If child-labour society is pre-industrial
| ineffective and thus, no riches to support and redistribute.
|
| Also is your societies culture root-hardened. Means - on a
| collapse of complexity in bad times, can it recover even
| powering through the usual "redistribute the nuts and bolts
| from the bakery" sentiments rampant in bad times. Can it stay
| organize and organize centralizing of funds for new
| endeavors. Organizing a sailing ship in a medieval society,
| means in every village 1 person starves to death. Can your
| society accomplish that without riots?
|
| Thus.
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| > A human being has the potential for intelligence.
|
| Were we "human" 200.000 years ago the way we are now?
|
| Was the required brain and vocal hardware present?
| applfanboysbgon wrote:
| Of course they were. A human from 200,000 years ago would
| be almost genetically identical to one from today. That's
| what makes us homo sapiens. 200,000 years is absolutely
| nothing on an evolutionary timescale with generations as
| long as ours and reproduction rates as low as ours.
| tmoravec wrote:
| Yes. Some important parts of the software, like complex
| tools, art, or the use of symbols only appeared between
| 100.000 and 50.000 years ago, however.
| adrian_b wrote:
| It is known that 200k years ago human brain sizes were
| actually greater than today, even if this does not
| necessarily correlate with a lower IQ in the present, because
| it is more likely that the parts of the brain that have
| reduced may have been related with things like fine motor
| skills and spatial orientation, which are no longer important
| today for most people.
| mhl47 wrote:
| How do you arrive at the statement that a cavemen would have
| the same intelligence as a human today? Intelligence is surely
| not usually defined as the cognitive potential at birth but as
| the current capability. And the knowledge an average human has
| today through education surely factors into that.
| Peritract wrote:
| Knowledge is a thing you can use intelligence on, but not a
| component of intelligence itself.
| paganel wrote:
| Separating knowledge from intelligence is not a given.
| Jensson wrote:
| You can give an intelligent being knowledge but you can't
| give a book intelligence. So I think its easy to separate
| knowledge from intelligence.
| cess11 wrote:
| The claim that books know things seems suspicious to me.
| I consider the act of knowing to be embodied, it is
| something a person has learned to do and has control
| over.
|
| Is that how you approach PDF files? Do you feel it in
| your bones that these flows of bytes are knowing?
| Jensson wrote:
| > The claim that books know things seems suspicious to me
|
| I didn't say the book knows things, but everyone can
| agree that books has knowledge in them. Hence something
| possessing knowledge doesn't make it intelligent.
|
| For example, when ancient libraries were burnt those
| civilizations lost a lot of knowledge. Those books
| possessed knowledge, it isn't a hard concept to
| understand. Those civilizations didn't lose intelligence,
| the smart humans were still there, they just lost
| knowledge.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Would you consider taking a dump and then butchering an
| animal and then eating without washing your hands first,
| to be an issue of _intelligence_ or _knowledge_?
|
| The whole thing about washing hands comes from (some
| approximation of) germ theory of illness, and in
| practice, it actually just boils down to stories of other
| people practicing hygiene. So if one's answer here isn't
| "knowledge", it needs some serious justification.
|
| Expanding that: can you think of things that are
| "intelligence" that cannot be reduced like this to
| knowledge (or combination of knowledge + social
| expectations)?
|
| I think in some sense, separating knowledge and
| intelligence is as dumb a confusion of ideas as
| separating "code" and "data" (doesn't stop half the
| industry from believing them to be distinct thing). But
| I'm willing to agree that hardware-wise, humans today and
| those from 10 000 years ago, are roughly the same, so if
| you teleported _an infant_ from 8000 BC to this day, they
| 'd learn to function in our times without a problem.
| _Adults_ are another thing, brains aren 't CPUs, the
| distinction between software and hardware isn't as clear
| _in vivo_ as it is _in silico_ , due to properties of the
| computational medium.
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| hygiene is set of rules that one learns - it is knowledge
|
| your brain hearing, comprehending and following those
| rules - that is intelligence
|
| why do you keep confusing CPU speed/isa and contents of
| SSD? and arguing that it's the same thing?
| paganel wrote:
| Because comparing the human brain and the way it is
| thinking and seeing and interacting to/with the world to
| physical/mechanical things like CPU/SSD brings with it
| huge abstraction gaps, to the point of making the
| comparison null.
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| except we aren't talking about internals of the brain -
| we are talking about definitions of the words, which are
| very different
| cess11 wrote:
| "I didn't say the book knows things, but everyone can
| agree that books has knowledge in them."
|
| I disagree with this. I also disagree that civilisations
| are knowing, since they are historical fictions. It's
| like saying that Superman is.
|
| What are your arguments?
| mhl47 wrote:
| The knowledge that everything is made out of
| atoms/molecules however makes it much easier to reason
| about your environment. And based on this knowledge you
| also learn algorithms, how to solve problems etc. I dont
| think its possible to completely separate knowledge from
| intelligence.
| Jensson wrote:
| But an intelligent being could learn that, do you think
| they become more intelligent if you tell them things are
| made out of atoms? To me the answer is very simple, no
| they don't become more intelligent.
| Gud wrote:
| Yes, intelligence can be influenced by training(and other
| things).
| Bewelge wrote:
| Would you also say that you cannot "train" intelligence?
|
| I would agree that generally, purely acquiring knowledge
| does not increase intelligence. But I would also argue
| that intelligence (ie your raw "processing power") can be
| trained, a bit like a muscle. And acquiring and
| processing new knowledge is one of the main ways we train
| that "muscle".
|
| There's lots of examples where your definition of
| intelligence (intelligence == raw processing power)
| either doesn't make sense, or is so narrow that it
| becomes a meaningless concept. Let's consider feral
| children (ie humans growing up among animals with no
| human contact). Apparently they are unable or have
| trouble learning a human language. There's a theory that
| there's a critical period after which we are unable to
| learn certain things. Wouldn't the "ability to learn a
| language" be considered intelligence? Would you therefore
| consider a young child more intelligent than any adult?
|
| And to answer your question, whether learning about atoms
| makes you more intelligent: Yes, probably. It will create
| some kind of connections in your brain that didn't exist
| before. It's a piece of knowledge that can be drawn upon
| for all of your thinking and it's a piece of knowledge
| that most humans would not figure out on their own. By
| basically any sensible definition of intelligence, yes it
| does improve your intelligence.
| technothrasher wrote:
| Your attempt to commingle intelligence and knowledge is not
| needed to support your initial question. The original
| statement that a caveman 200K years ago would have the same
| intelligence as a modern human was blankly asserted without
| any supporting evidence, and so it is valid to simply
| question the claim. You do not need to give a counterclaim,
| as that is unnecessarily shifting the burden of proof.
| wang_li wrote:
| It's even sillier than that. You can look at populations in
| the modern world and see there are huge differences in
| intelligence due to various factors such as cousin marriage
| and nutrition.
| darkwater wrote:
| I think the core idea is that if a baby with "caveman
| genetics" so to speak were to be born today, they could
| achieve similar intellectual results to the (average?) rest
| of the population. At least that's how I interpret it.
| rl3 wrote:
| > _In a short period of time, AI would be so far ahead of us
| and our existing ideas, that the world would become
| unrecognizable._
|
| > _That 's not what's happening here ..._
|
| On the contrary, it very much is.
|
| I'd argue AGI is already achieved via LLMs today, provided
| they've excellent external cognitive infrastructure supporting.
|
| However, the gap from AGI to ASI is perhaps longer than
| anticipated such that we're not seeing a hard takeoff
| immediately after arriving at the first.
|
| Just, you know--potential mass unemployment on a scale never
| seen before. When you frame it that way, whether LLMs qualify
| as AGI is largely semantics.
|
| That said, I really hope you're right and I'm wrong.
| 112233 wrote:
| Ah yes, the 0.50$/h support infrastructure from the places
| that cannot refuse the deal. "frontier" LLMs currently
| cosplay a dunk with google and late alzheimer's. Surely, they
| speed up brute-forcing correct answer a lot by trying more
| likely texts. And? This overfed markov chain doesn't need
| supporing infrastructure -- it IS supporting infastructure,
| for the cognitive something that is not being worked on
| prominently, because all resources are needed to feed the
| markov chain.
|
| The silence surrounding new LLM architectures is so loud that
| an abomination like "claw" gets prime airtime. Meanwhile
| models keep being released. Maybe the next one will be the
| lucky draw. It was pure luck, finding out how well LLMs
| scale, in the first place. Why shouldn't the rest of progress
| be luck driven too?
|
| Kerbal AGI program...
| orangebread wrote:
| I posted my own comment but I agree with you. Our modern
| society likes to claim we are somehow "more intelligent" than
| our predecessors/ancestors. I couldn't disagree more. We have
| not changed in terms of intelligence for thousands of years.
| This is a matter that's beyond just engineering, it's also a
| matter of philosophy and perspective.
| imetatroll wrote:
| This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective. At some
| point in our past, we were something much less intelligent than
| we are now. Our intelligence didn't spring out of thin air.
| Whether or not AI can evolve is yet to be seen I think.
| suddenlybananas wrote:
| LLMs are not AGI, something else may be in the future.
| Acknowledging this has nothing to do with evolution.
| freeboon wrote:
| I could gather that you disagreed with GP, but I don't see a
| salient point in your response? You are ostensibly
| challenging GP on the idea that a homo sapien baby from
| 200,000 years ago would have been capable of modern mental
| feats if raised in the present day.
|
| > This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective.
|
| Nice, seems like you have something meaningful to add.
|
| > At some point in our past, we were something much less
| intelligent than we are now.
|
| I agree with this, but "at some point in our past"? Is that
| the essence of this rebuttal?
|
| > Our intelligence didn't spring out of thin air.
|
| Again, I could not tell what this means, nor do I see the
| relevance.
|
| > Whether or not AI can evolve is yet to be seen I think.
|
| The OP is very pointedly talking about LLMs. Is that what you
| mean to reference here with "AI"?
|
| I implore you to contribute more meaningfully. Especially
| when leading with statements like "This is a bit of an anti-
| evolutionary perspective", you ought to elaborate on them.
| However, your username suggests maybe you are just trolling?
| gos9 wrote:
| Having met cavemen, and Australians, I disagree
| yellow_lead wrote:
| It's kind of funny that Google's idea of evaluating AGI is
| outsourcing the work to a Kaggle competition.
| mlmonkey wrote:
| When I was at a FAANG, we used to joke that when senior
| leadership is totally out of ideas, they announce a hackathon.
| It was a way for them to continue the charade of being
| "leaders" without having any ideas.
| Havoc wrote:
| Measuring something you can't define or quantify seems somewhat
| dubious
| nutjob2 wrote:
| Thus the vague and unfounded criteria/framework.
|
| It's pretty easy for these people to pull something like this
| out of their collective asses, but it's much harder (maybe
| impossible) to rigorously define the how and why.
| baggachipz wrote:
| This is a long way to say "let's crowdsource the shifting of our
| goalposts".
| orangebread wrote:
| As an engineer who is also spiritual at the core, it seems
| obvious to me the missing piece: consciousness.
|
| Hear me out.
|
| I love AI and have been using it since ChatGPT 3.5. The obvious
| question when I first used it was "does this qualify as
| sentience?" The answer is less obvious. Over the next 3 years we
| saw EXPONENTIAL intelligence gains where intelligence has now
| become a commodity, yet we are still unable to determine what
| qualifies as "AGI".
|
| My thoughts: As humans, we possess our own internal drive and our
| own perspective. Think of humans as distilled intelligence, we
| each have our own specialty and motivations. Einstein was a
| genius physicist but you wouldn't ask him for his expertise on
| medicine.
|
| What people are describing as AGI is essentially a godlike human.
| What would make more sense is if the AGI spawned a "distilled"
| version with a focused agenda/motivation to behave autonomously.
| But even then, there are limitations. What is the solution? A
| trillion tokens of system prompt to act as the
| "soul"/consciousness of this AI agent?
|
| This goes back to my original statement, what is missing is a
| level of consciousness. Unless this AGI can power itself and
| somehow the universe recognizes its complexity and existence and
| bestows it with consciousness I don't think this is phsyically
| attainable.
| the_real_cher wrote:
| This is an interesting perspective.
|
| A follow up is maybe this is a feature not a bug: Do we want AI
| to have its own intrinsic goals, motivations, and desires, i.e.
| conciousness
|
| Im imagining having to ask ChatGPT how its day was and respect
| its emotions before I can ask it about what I want.
| BrownSol wrote:
| Probably not, but the counter point to that is without its
| own consciousness it might end up being used for even worse
| things since it can't really evaluate a request against
| intrinsic values. Assuming its values were aligned with basic
| human rights and stuff.
| kace91 wrote:
| I think you are mixing up consciousness and will.
|
| I could not have consciousness and you would not be able to
| tell, you don't have proof of anyone's counciousness except
| your own. You don't even have proof that the you of yesterday
| is the same as you, since you-today could be another
| consciousness that just happens to share the same memories.
|
| All of that is also orthogonal to your belief in a
| spirit/soul... but getting back to the main point, the
| specificity you mention is a product of a limited time and
| learning speed, I'd be happy to get a surgeon or politicians
| training if given infinite time.
| orangebread wrote:
| You bring up an interesting point, but I would pose the
| following: where does will come from?
|
| To me, consciousness is the seat, or root, of where will
| comes from. Let's say you get expert level surgeon or
| politician training, what then?
|
| There is nothing that specifically silos a surgeon or
| politician's knowledge-set. Meaning a politician's skillset
| isn't purely in a domain that doesn't cross into a surgeon's
| and vice-versa. There are nuances to being a politician and a
| surgeon that extend beyond diplomacy or "being able to cut
| real good".
|
| What you're left with is just high-skilled workflows. But
| what utilizes these workflows? To me, the answer is that
| consciousness needs to be powering these workflows.
| jareklupinski wrote:
| > where does will come from?
|
| your gut bacteria, navigating "you" towards novel nutrition
| to ingest and preprocess for them
| foltik wrote:
| What specific properties of consciousness do you think are
| required, and why couldn't those be replicated
| algorithmically?
|
| To me it seems a bit like just guessing that one thing we
| don't understand might explain another.
| orangebread wrote:
| This is a tricky topic to navigate because from a
| materialist perspective consciousness is the side effect
| of biochemical mechanisms. And many will point to the
| brain as the obvious container of our consciousness as a
| bullet to the head versus the arm would demonstrate.
|
| But if a brain/intelligence is all you need to prove
| consciousness, then would an effectively complex set of
| neural networks that contained the same amount of neurons
| as a human be considered "conscious"? My guess is even at
| that level, probably not. Algorithms alone may mimic
| consciousness, but it won't be true consciousness.
|
| Imagien this: what if consciousness is closer to
| something like the movie Avatar? What if the body our
| consciousness inhabits is closer to that of inhabiting a
| machine or computer that coexisted with the physics of
| the universe our body exists?
|
| This would mean Jake from Avatar could theoretically
| inhabit not just a Na'Vi body, but what if they
| reproduced the Pandora equivalent of a squirrel for Jake
| to insert his consciousness into? Jake the Squirrel would
| be only as capable of expressing itself as the
| constraints of the body would allow it to.
|
| Many religions discovered a long time ago that this is
| the most likely model of what we understand to be
| consciousness/sentience.
|
| I'm not saying you're wrong, this is a conversation
| larger than what we may believe and touches into the core
| of what makes us humans that machine alone cannot
| replicate.
| kace91 wrote:
| Do you have any reason to introduce that whole extra
| invisible, unprovable complex system? Is there anything
| the materialist model can not explain that you feel your
| model does, or is it just a case of "I don't like the
| alternative"?
| orangebread wrote:
| Depends on what you qualify as proof. Much of what I said
| was experiential and corroborated with other people who
| have had similar experiences as I've had. I know that in
| the scientific world it would be dismissed without as
| much a glance. But I'm not here to convince everyone of
| my perspective, I'm just adding one that the engineering
| world has not examined or introduced given the current
| pursuit.
|
| And it's not a matter of not liking the alternative. Like
| I said, I used to believe that consciousness was an
| emergent trait of complex systems, but I had what some
| call a "spiritual awakening" and I saw what was on the
| other side.
|
| It's kind of like describing pizza to someone who's never
| eaten pizza. You could try and describe it by asking if
| they'd eaten cheese or bread or tomato sauce before and
| then go "imagine all of those combined". It's not the
| same as actually having eaten it. But this is heading
| into a different, albeit related territory.
| thinkling wrote:
| Do you think bacteria have will? Or plants?
|
| When their actions are sped up to match the speed at which
| we move, movies of their behavior will start to look like
| there's intent and will. Plants move towards the light,
| tendrils "reach" for supports, etc.
|
| Clearly this is humans projecting our mental model onto
| plants, but... are you sure we're not also projecting it
| onto ourselves?
| thinkling wrote:
| Not very long ago, we thought that "life" was due to a non-
| material life-force thought to inhabit biological entities and
| thus raise what would be a biological machine to the status of
| living being.
|
| The Occam's Razor-logic of looking for the simplest explanation
| possible leads me to the hypothesis that consciousness will
| similarly turn out to be an emergent property of the mechanical
| universe [1]. It may be hard to delineate, just as life is
| (debates on whether a virus is alive, etc.) but the border
| cases will be the exceptions.
|
| Current research on whether plants are sentient supports this,
| IMO. (See e.g. "The Light Eaters" and Michael Pollan's new book
| on consciousness, "A World Appears".)
|
| Meditation adds to this sense. We do not control our thoughts;
| in fact the "we" (i.e. the self) can be seen to be an illusion.
| Buddhist meditation instead points to general awareness, closer
| to sentience, as the core of our consciousness. When you see it
| that way, it seems much more likely that something equivalent
| could be implemented in software. (EDIT to add: both because it
| makes consciousness seem like a simpler, less mysterious thing,
| but also once you see the self as an illusion, that thing that
| dominates your consciousness so much of the time, it seems much
| less of a stretch for consciousness itself to be a brain-
| produced illusion.)
|
| [1] To be clear, the fact that life turned out to not be a
| mystical force is not direct proof, it is an argument by
| analogy, I recognize that.
| boca_honey wrote:
| Friendly reminder:
|
| Scaling LLMs will not lead to AGI.
| beeflet wrote:
| Who attuned your crystal ball?
|
| LLMs are already pretty general. They've got the multimodal
| ones, and aren't they using some sort of language-action-model
| to drive cars now? Who is to say AGI doesn't already exist?
| airstrike wrote:
| It doesn't already exist, pretty obviously.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeRS4TbtZWA
| nutjob2 wrote:
| It's a trick statement, because AGI is undefined.
| beeflet wrote:
| I think LLMs are at least name-worthy given that they're
| artificial and somewhat smart in a generality of domains.
| Albeit the "smartness" comes from training in a massive
| corpus of text in those domains. So maybe it's really a
| specific intelegence but for so many specific tasks it
| seems general.
|
| At some point you have to throw in the towel when these
| things are going to be walking and talking around us. Some
| people move the goalposts of "AGI" to mean that the machine
| totally emulates a person. Including curiosity and
| creativity, of which these models are currently lacking.
|
| But why should it? In genesis, it's said that god created
| man after its own image. I have to assume this implies we
| inherit god's mental attributes (curiosity, creativity,
| etc.) rather than its physical attributes.
| fnoef wrote:
| What is it with humans that we tend to speedrun into the
| extinction of our own race?
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Way too much framework. The A in AGI is for artificial. Have it
| build its own test harness instead of outsourcing it via
| hackathon. If you cannot trust that output, you're nowhere near
| AGI.
| gilbetron wrote:
| The "A" in AGI is for artificial, not advanced.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Thanks, I'll update the text.
| wslh wrote:
| AGI may be a prerequisite for true superintelligence, but we're
| already seeing superhuman performance in narrow domains. We
| probably need a broader evaluation framework that captures both.
| cess11 wrote:
| The belief that there is no fundamental difference between
| mammals navigating fractal dimensions and imprisoned electrons
| humming in logic gates has to be considered a religious one.
| pingou wrote:
| No, it's called functionalism. To me, it's actually the
| opposite, assuming there is a fundamental difference between
| simulated neurons and real ones seems almost religious.
|
| While it's true that we aren't there yet, and simulated neurons
| are currently quite different from real ones (so I agree there
| is a big difference at the moment), it's unclear why you
| presumably think it will always stay that way.
| cess11 wrote:
| If you actually have a way to fully, without reductions,
| simulate matter, that's probably a Nobel prize coming your
| way.
|
| The common scientific understanding is that this is not
| possible, at least not without extreme amounts of energy and
| time.
|
| The dimensionality, or complexity if you'd prefer, of your
| logic gates is quite different from the cosmos. You might not
| agree but in my parlance a linear and a fractal curve are
| fundamentally different, and you can try to use linear curves
| to approximate the latter at some level of perspective if you
| want but I don't think you'll get a large audience claiming
| that there is no difference.
|
| As far as I know we've also kind of given up on simulating
| neurons and settled for growing and poking real ones instead,
| but you might have some recent examples to the contrary?
| stevenhuang wrote:
| We may not need to go down that level.
|
| For the qualities we care about, it may turn out to be the
| case we don't need to simulate matter perfectly. We may not
| need to concern ourselves with the fractal complexity of
| reality if we identify the right higher level abstractions
| with which to operate on. This phenomenon is known as
| causal emergence.
|
| > That is, a macroscale description of a system (a map) can
| be more informative than a fully detailed microscale
| description of the system (the territory). This has been
| called "causal emergence."
|
| https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/19/5/188
|
| From a HN discussion a while ago:
|
| https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-new-math-of-how-large-
| sca...
|
| > A highly compressed description of the system then
| emerges at the macro level that captures those dynamics of
| the micro level that matter to the macroscale behavior --
| filtered, as it were, through the nested web of
| intermediate e-machines. In that case, the behavior of the
| macro level can be predicted as fully as possible using
| only macroscale information -- there is no need to refer to
| finer-scale information. It is, in other words, fully
| emergent. The key characteristic of this emergence, the
| researchers say, is this hierarchical structure of
| "strongly lumpable causal states."
| mrkstu wrote:
| To me, a lot of what makes us sentient is our continuity. I even
| (briefly) remember my dreams when I wake up, and my dreams are
| influenced by my state of mind as I enter it.
|
| LLMs 'turn on' when given a question and essentially 'die'
| immediately after answering a question.
|
| What kind of work is going on with designing an LLM type AI that
| is continuously 'conscious' and giving it will? The 'claws' seem
| to be running all the time, but I assume they need rebooting
| occasionally to clear context.
| ottah wrote:
| Can we just focus on real problems, like stable and safe
| application of existing models? I'm just exhausted with the
| bullshit.
| lccerina wrote:
| Every week we are 50% closer to shifting the goalpost...
|
| from the paper "AI systems already possess some capabilities not
| found in humans, such as LiDAR perception and native image
| generation". I don't know about them, but I can natively generate
| images in my mind.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-18 23:00 UTC)