12 ms·
I would call a chat bot a specialized application. And I dispute that a chat bot was ever considered the end goal of AGI. The idea is that if we had AGI, we cou
by e_y_ 3y ago
I would call a chat bot a specialized application. And I dispute that a chat bot was ever considered the end goal of AGI. The idea is that if we had AGI, we could build a chat bot with it to test/demonstrate its general reasoning capabilities. Simply being effective at chatting is not sufficient to be called an AGI. And today's chatbots are quite stupid.
Sure we're starting to give chat bots the ability to query information and even interpret user-provided images, but AFAIK the image interpretation is done using a different model rather than being an extension of the LLM.
- famouswaffles 3y agoLLMs aren't chatbots. That's just a nice consequence of what they can do. Their prediction abilities stretch beyond just language even if they're only trained on it. https://general-pattern-machines.github.io/ https://general-pattern-machines.github.io/ There's nothing specialized about being able to predict meaningful completions from arbitrary token sequences. There's a whole lot that can be done with that even if they were constrained to language. https://tidybot.cs.princeton.edu/ https://tidybot.cs.princeton.edu/ https://innermonologue.github.io/ https://innermonologue.github.io/ There's nothing stupid about GPT-4. There's no testable definition of general intelligence GPT-4 would fail that a chunk of humans also wouldn't. Vision understanding does not have to be a separate model. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.14824 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.14824