there is no glory in the idea that we have created intelligence by llm's. from my perspective, you must mean something very narrow by intelligence, and i find i

there is no glory in the idea that we have created intelligence by llm's. from my perspective, you must mean something very narrow by intelligence, and i find it extremely difficult to respond to, because i do not want to deconstruct and demean man's intelligence, definitely not down to what an llm does. the only barriers to understanding the code is power and time. are you seriously advocating for an unintelligible object, made by our own hand? that - in itself - is considered intelligent? someone's going to get burnt trying to chase two meanings at once, and it's not going to me, i'm sorry. if you want to discuss centuries-long innovation, then the counter-argument is just more centuries of interpretation and dissection to understand it. if you want to guesstimate AGI arriving at 2220 then the balancing counter-technology comes in at 2420. people are already starting the process of cracking open the black box. [0] the majority of what keeps AI and any software "in the dark" is the cloud's cybersecurity and legal mechanisms (and the need for man-power) that prevent the average researcher breaking into it. it is still vulnerable to the scientific method and symbolic interpretation. as always. LLM's main advantage is keeping knowledge out of the hands of the poor and the public. The millisecond AI becomes "good enough" people will use it as a cover-up justification to start hiding currently accessible knowledge behind paywalls and university entrance exams. AI is the grim reaper for the world we used to know. [0]https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AcKRB8wDpdaN6v6ru/interpreting-gpt-the-logit-lens https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AcKRB8wDpdaN6v6ru/interpreti...