[galaxytachyon]

Ok here it is. An LLM with physical senses. They mentioned sense of touch and I think that is a big deal. You can teach me all you want about a new color with all the text description available and it would be worse than just show me that new color.

In the same way, letting an AI actually touch and interact with the world would do wonders in grounding it and making sure it understand concepts beyond just the words or the bytes it was fed during training. GPT4 can already understand images and text, it should not be long until it takes care of videos and we can say AI has vision. This robot from toyota would have touch. We need hearing and smelling and then maybe we will get something resembling a true AGI.

[consumer451]

> Ok here it is. An LLM with physical senses.

See: Pieter Abbeel & Jitendra Malik

https://www.therobotbrains.ai/copy-of-jitendra-malik

[nradov]

There's no reason to expect that such advances will get us closer to a true AGI. I mean it's not impossible, but there's no coherent theory or technical roadmap. Just a lot of hope and hand waving.

I do think that this is an impressive accomplishment and will lead to valuable commercial products regardless of the AGI issues.

[criddell]

> true AGI

What is that? Most humans have general intelligence, but do other apes? Do dogs? A quick google search suggests that the answer is yes.

If that’s the case, then this approach may indeed yield an AGI but maybe it’s not going to be much better than a golden retriever. Truly excellent at some things, intensely loyal (I hope), but goofy at most other things.

Or maybe just as dogs will never understand calculus, maybe our future AGI will understand things that we will not be able to. It seems to me that there’s a good chance that AGI (and intelligence in general) is a spectrum.

[mxkopy]

"True AGI" is often used in a way that means "human-like intelligence, but faster, more consistent and of greater depth". In that case, knowing that embodied agents are the way forward is quite trivial. We've known for a long time that the development of a human brain is a function of its sensory inputs - why would this be any different for an artificial intelligence, especially if designed to mimic/interface with a human one?

[xwdv]

Why imitate human senses? AI should be able to reach out and touch radio waves, and interpret their meanings, much how we interpret the meaning behind gusts of wind.

[TaylorAlexander]

We can do both, but clearly the senses that mammals have are well adapted for existence on Earth.

[JumpCrisscross]

> reach out and touch radio waves

At the point we're describing "touching" massless particles, we might as well say that's what our retinas do. In terms of novel senses, some kind of gravitometric sense would be neat. LIGO-on-a-chip and all.