Everybody is always talking about AGI. I'm more curious about using the tools that we have now.

Submitted by levoniust t3_10zsymm in singularity

We already have the tools to revolutionize the education system. I think that we should still focus a little attention on AGI. But we should be spending far more resources on reducing the computational requirements of the current AI systems that we have to revolutionize the schooling system. Having an assistant that can communicate on any level that you are and help train and teach you on your current strengths and weaknesses without getting frustrated and having unlimited time for you as the student. For years we've been talking about how if you try to judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree it will always fail. Well now we have the ability to have an individual teacher for an individual student and work on their own strengths and weaknesses to bring them up as quickly or as slowly as they need. Always being able to challenge ones understanding to better educate them especially at the grade school level I think will greatly enhance the learning system.

This technology already exists. It is here right now, and it seems to me that all the schools are doing are limiting the students ability to use these amazing tools, except for a couple instances of teachers leaning into this new and amazing individual learning curriculum.

Right now Google has the schools by the balls thanks to Chromebooks and whatnot. I feel that if Microsoft would like to take over again this is their next step.

What are your thoughts about having a school oriented AI assistant focused on an individual persons learning curriculum?

47

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Hunter62610 t1_j856p0v wrote

I think AGI will honestly come about just as fast. Chat gpt is close in many respects given that it is already gaining interfacing power with other AI shards. I think we will have a proto-AGI before 2025. Not bugless, nor will it be fully capable, but there is no reason that Chat GPT could understand and common Stable diffusion to make art. And if told to update often enough with current news, an AI would have linear if not conscious thoughts.

20

Practical-Mix-4332 t1_j85846s wrote

Based on the progress in the last 3 months, I’d say it might even come in 2024. This new Bing is insane by the posts I’m seeing. Education can be revolutionized literally right now just by talking to Bing

12

levoniust OP t1_j85ajm8 wrote

Did you watch the LTT wan show? They were experimenting with it and it seemed pretty cool.

1

Falkoro t1_j85la2k wrote

Where can I see it?

2

EOE97 t1_j888i3k wrote

High chance of a decent proto AGI this year alone. And I may go as far as to say we will likely have public access to it, be it beta acess/otherwise.

1

_sphinxfire t1_j85ota3 wrote

I'm not sure what your "linear thoughts" look like if you think a language model that constantly updates itself to maintain its predictive ability is "thinking" in any way. Where does agency come into the picture here? Where's the goal structure?

2

PleasantlyUnbothered t1_j85u2su wrote

I imagine a huge slender cylindrical (whatever shape) “database” existing at the center, and “linear thoughts” would be a data stream that would propagate from this central position, but remain connected to it, like a small tendril. This tendril would be 1 conversation, or a line of thought, similar to the stream of consciousness literary device.

When that instance, conversation, thought, etc. is deemed “complete”, either by outside environment or internal timers, this tendril will fold itself perfectly back into that center database, allowing the AI to “re-center” itself, seamlessly (once systems have been perfected) integrating the most recent information into its already existing database, and allowing it to bring that entire knowledge base into the next virtual space it occupies.

Hope this helps!

1

TwitchTvOmo1 t1_j87ys5j wrote

>but there is no reason that Chat GPT could understand and common Stable diffusion to make art.

Gonna make a giant leap here and assume you meant to type

>but there is no reason that Chat GPT could not understand and command Stable diffusion to make art.

This is already done and it's already been implemented in the most popular web-ui for stable diffusion too. Granted the results aren't perfect yet.

1

ninjasaid13 t1_j884fva wrote

>This is already done and it's already been implemented in the most popular web-ui for stable diffusion too. Granted the results aren't perfect yet.

that's gpt3.

1

TwitchTvOmo1 t1_j887j70 wrote

I was under the impression that they're essentially the same thing, no? Just Chat GPT was castrated to be able to deal with conversations only

1

ninjasaid13 t1_j88luzg wrote

ChatGPT has more under the hood, it's a finetuned version of 3.5 and it was trained on Text and data before 2021. It was using reinforcement learning with human feedback.

1

blueSGL t1_j860ynw wrote

Honestly with the speed that things are going at whatever the changes are is going to be trying to hit a moving target.

ChatGPT can answer things confidently incorrect.

Now what if you have the same system but it can check it's work against the internet?

What about the next model that has even more fine tuning around ranked search results (e.g. trust the *math results from Wolfram Alpha higher than anywhere else etc) and maybe even more emergent capabilities?

Whatever the new structure is needs to be formatted in such a way that should capabilities increase from here it's not kneecapped e.g. generating an essay via ChatGPT and getting the students to grade and correct it completely falls by the wayside when the generated document is 100% factually correct.

6

levoniust OP t1_j86az3t wrote

>Now what if you have the same system but it can check it's work against the internet?

lol like Bing chat?

7

blueSGL t1_j86n7e4 wrote

Exactly my point, any teacher gearing up to be responsive to ChatGPT by molding coursework around its shortcomings are going to have an endless string of 'new and improved' coming their way scuppering the plan if they don't project out capabilities and plan accordingly,.

2

Lawjarp2 t1_j87k2tq wrote

Why do that when AGI can do it for you? Lol.

But seriously, why? Why put so much effort into it when the newer more advanced ones can do it for you with less effort.

5

Tiamatium t1_j87g684 wrote

First of, "don't judge a fish for it's ability to climb a tree" is a load of bullshit. No one asks children to be experts in multiple fields, we are asking them for bare minimum knowledge in multiple fields. It's an excuse, a stupidity and laziness fueled excuse, which brings me to my second point, in the future (and to a large degree even now, especially if you are on Reddit) what will truly separate haves and have-nots is ability and willingness to learn new things. YouTube is already full of lectures on every subject imaginable, companies like Amazon and Microsoft will give you free server, to run your web app, etc. The barrier for entry is no longer money, it's the knowledge. Which brings me to my third point, why "revolutionize" children education when adult education needs it even more?

If you are truly serious about something like that, you should realize that adults need and want to learn too, they need education, they want education, and most importantly, they do not have the same barrier for entry, they do not have legal constrain. Second, yes, with technologies like chatGPT we are very close to personalized tutor for every student, and we need that. I believe Arthur C Clarke predicted that back in 60's.

4

Iffykindofguy t1_j8d2mz0 wrote

Your dismissal of that argument is stupid and lazy. Intellectually dishonest, it ignores the fact that brains work in different ways and currently schooling is designed to focus on one aspect of learning: regurgitation.

​

You are a child and should keep your opinions closer to the chest until you get some experience under your belt.

0

datsmamail12 t1_j86fog3 wrote

My thoughts on the topic are that,even if we get a proto AGI by 2025,the world's largest supercomputer won't be able to simulate the human brain and it's complexities. It will take time before we can put all that computational power into good use.

I do still feel that even if we got AGI by tomorrow, we'd still need at least 5 years to be able to use that commercially. All these things you worry about,I strongly feel that they'll come into good use once we have AGI. I feel that we will first have AGI and then we will get to implement all of them into our society.

1