3 ms·
I don't think he is wrong. I also don't think the goal of LLMs is to reproduce human intelligence. That is, we don't need human-like inteligence in a box for a
by gchamonlive 3y ago
I don't think he is wrong. I also don't think the goal of LLMs is to reproduce human intelligence. That is, we don't need human-like inteligence in a box for a tool to be useful. So this assertion could be right and still miss the point of this tech in my opinion.
Edit: to expand, if the goal is AGI then yes we need all the help we can get. But even so, AGI is in a totally different league compared to human intelligence, they might as well be a different species.
- jpk 3y agoThe context of the fine article is scaling LLMs into AGI. It's not about whether the tool is useful or not, as usefulness is a threshold well before AGI. Some folks are spooked that LLMs are a few optimizations away from the singularity, and the article just discusses some reasons why that probably isn't the case.
- gchamonlive 3y agoThe article is really good! I was responding to "is he wrong" part of the comment, not the article itself.
- tremarley 3y agoWe don’t need human-like intelligence in a box for a tool to be useful, But human-like intelligence is what many companies are spending billions to try and achieve
- dartos 3y agoThis. I don’t think LLMs are anywhere near sci-fi AGI (think I, robot) It’s such a vague term anyway, AGI. LLMs provide some really nice text generation, summarization, and outstanding semantic search. It’s drop dead easy to make a natural language interface to anything now. That’s a big deal. That’s what’s going to give this tech it’s longevity, imo.