Submitted by tedd321 t3_ydm84o in singularity
So where is GATO?
Did DeepMind build this "generalist agent" and then just leave it in the coffers?
We should be able to use this model. Everyone should be able to enjoy the benefits of AI.
​
Or maybe it was fake news?
Where is gato?
How do you know that? Where did you pull the source out of?
>Everyone should be able to enjoy the benefits oF AI.
My cynical side says whoever creates an AI/ASI won’t want to share their moneymaker with anyone.
If that were to happen, others would make their own AI, so rich people can't hide AI.
Of course they can. People don't just magically make a similar AI, they need to know the details of the model. If it is different enough from what is being published they can for sure keep it secret.
An organization could just pump ou products designed by AI, solutions made by AI, algorithms found by AI, etc, etc, and pretend it was made by people, they don't even need to disclose they are pumping out AI generated products and solutions.
Of course it's very complex, but hopefully open source AI models will become available at some point. Or perhaps some companies may share AI/AGI for business purposes. For example, a company may offer AGI service in exchange for data to build the AI model.
Probably true. People suck.
GATO was pretty shit in comparison to other more focused models.
And yet… it still did complete basic tasks with some degree of success. The well paid ‘academics’ of Deepmind don’t understand how simple some of the tasks in the real world are if some sort of automated process could do them.
Shame on Deepmind
1: it's not AGI
2: AI overhangs exist. If AGI was unveiled today, you'd probably not feel it's effects on your daily life for years. We're spoiled by large language and diffusion models being immediately useful.
AGI immediately affecting your daily life sounds like a myth to me
Why not? It’s the closest thing to AGI so far. Maybe not ASI but some lower form of AGI
Gato didn't perform especially well compared with other networks trained (individually) on each test. It was a demonstration of generalization, and not particularly well suited for any particular task. The authors themselves called it a proof-of-concept.
>We should be able to use this model. Everyone should be able to enjoy the benefits of AI.
If you want to use a model, build and train it yourself. If someone builds a rocket, you don't get to go for a ride. Why do you think that you should just be able to use a model that someone else designed and trained?
>If someone builds a rocket, you don't get to go for a ride. Why do you think that you should just be able to use a model that someone else designed and trained?
Not the same thing. A rocket is a limited resource: it can only be used by so many people at once. An AI model has no real scarcity: it can be copied and run on anyone's computers with no limits.
>An AI model has no real scarcity: it can be copied and run on anyone's computers with no limits.
Gamer here. An executable being written in a language your personal computer understands is no guarantee it will run well on your rig.
I didn't mean it would literally run on any computer, that's not my point.
Fair enough, the analogy is flawed; let me try again. Then you think you should have access to all books, all music, all movies, etc. because they do not have the scarcity of a rocket and can be easily copied?
I'm a huge fan of open source, and I especially appreciate that so much of the software and tooling in ML and AI is open source. At the same time, DeepMind can release or not whatever they want, you are not entitled to it. But fear not, someone will release an open source work-alike soon enough. Perhaps HuggingFace, maybe some other group.
I don't think we should be applying the same standards to AI, which will be the most important technology in all of history. The way it proliferates is going to make a large impact on humanity's future.
Of course, DeepMind is perfectly within their legal rights to not share their models. But ethically speaking, they should... or maybe they should be trying to keep AI out of the hands of the public at all costs. Either way, this is too important to rely on copyright laws for answers.
>you think you should have access to all books, all music, all movies, etc. because they do not have the scarcity of a rocket and can be easily copied?
other than infohazards, yes, obviously.
and realistically that's a terrible analogy to make on the internet.
you know, the place that has "all books, all music, all movies, etc.".
regardless of any "companies can do what they want" mentality, I think a culture of blinding/jailing/restricting 90% of major AI models is how you get skynet coming online with complete hostility. Not saying I'm opposed to that, just that I don't think it plays out the way people think.
that would be so boring... one person makes it to space and can't show it to anyone
Pointless in the context of making a singularity happen
Yes… so it didn’t perform better than something with 100000 billion quadrillion hours of training time… but it still performed well enough… to make a difference.
The people at Deepmind do not understand the urgency.
it probably helped build AlphaFold
Interesting…
GATO is able to retain knowledge across different tasks. It’s not, however, is able to "generalize"(i.e. the improvement in one task did not lead to improvement in a different task) (if i remember the paper correctly). So no, AGI was not solved.
GATO isn't AGI, and it's not going to be AGI.
Wrong
Sashinii t1_itt93ht wrote
Gato is still being scaled up, probably resulting in proto-AGI being created in 2023 or 2024.