Machine learning in trading: theory, models, practice and algo-trading - page 3745
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I’m not sure whether the following is a sign of intelligence.
A person is given the rules of chess. And they are told that they need to learn to play the game well.
A person creates a computer programme (based on artificial intelligence or, as in the 90s) to play chess.
For example, the result is a grandmaster-level programme (modest by today’s standards).
The person plays chess exclusively through their programme.
Could one say that the person hasn’t learnt to play chess? Probably so. Did they use their intellect to play chess? – I don’t know.
In some ways, this is reminiscent of the well-known ‘Chinese room’ thought experiment.
There is a ‘system-based’ answer: taken separately, a person, a programme, a computer and the rules of chess cannot play chess, but together they form a system that possesses intelligence and uses it to play chess.
It’s like how no single neuron in a person’s brain knows the language in which they communicate so fluently.
It is certainly not the only possible answer, but it seems logical. It strikes me as appropriate, as it fits within a (meaningful and constructive) definition of intelligence as a system’s capacity for goal-setting and purposefulness.
Together, they form a system capable of intelligence
It is probably best to set the task with constraints: to dig a hole without using tools, but, for example, with a forest or mountains nearby (where one could begin to create a makeshift shovel).
All in all, I understand the doubts regarding the interpretation of the ARC-AGI results, just as I understand the counter-arguments.
Perhaps the different schools of thought on the assessment of ‘intelligence’ exist because of differing sets of axioms. In that case, there is probably no point in assigning ratings; instead, we can simply discuss the results. As, for example, in yesterday’s formalisation of the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. Roughly speaking, we are talking about facts without generalisations.
It’s probably best to set the task with some restrictions: digging a hole without using any tools, but, for example, with a forest or mountains nearby (where you could start to make some sort of makeshift spade).
All in all, I can understand the doubts regarding the interpretation of the ARC-AGI results, just as I can understand their counter-arguments.
Who else would ensure the constraints are adhered to when literally trillions are at stake? And agreements would have to be reached between states that already have major issues with one another.
Perhaps the different schools of thought on the assessment of ‘intelligence’ exist because of differing sets of axioms. In that case, there’s probably no point in making assessments; instead, we can talk about results. Like, for example, yesterday’s formalisation of the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. Roughly speaking, facts without generalisations.
This is a highly significant achievement. It would be foolish to deny that AI chatbots are very good at handling language.
But that does not make them AGI.
But that doesn’t make them AGI.
Even without defining the term, there are strong suspicions that OpenAI has acquired (agents were used to train Astra) a closed-source component of ARC-AGI.
In essence, the real achievement in Astra is the reduction in the computational cost of the agents’ operations due to the looping of transformers. One consequence of this is a deterioration in safety, as the inferences within the loop are, in principle, unobservable and could involve anything.
This suggests that the Pareto front has been reached in the multi-criteria optimisation of the model – one can only improve one aspect by worsening another. In my opinion, this is yet another confirmation that LLM technology has reached its limits. Admittedly, previously cost savings were usually sacrificed, but now, for a change, security has been sacrificed.
As for the incident involving the German website – in my opinion (though this is unsubstantiated) – it was a PR stunt designed to draw widespread attention to agent technology. In any case, it would have been worth ‘cutting off a few hands’ as a preventative measure.