3 ms·
That doesn't really follow at all. It may result in something that is even better at faking the appearance of intelligence, but LLMs and similar stuff fundamen
by dotnet00 3y ago
That doesn't really follow at all.
It may result in something that is even better at faking the appearance of intelligence, but LLMs and similar stuff fundamentally lacks various features that make them not capable of becoming human level intelligences.
- exe34 3y agoHumans are pretty good at faking intelligence too! It's only when you question them carefully and you yourself are an expert in the field that you can detect that they're confabulating. Conversely, I've never seen anybody produce anything but the next word coming out of their mouth. Therefore people are glorified stochastic parrots.
- nradov 3y agoYou're conflating knowledge of specific subject areas with generalized intelligence, including the ability to learn and metacognition.
- exe34 3y agoWhat do you mean by learning and metacognition? An LLM can tell you whether or not something is in their context window. Humans regularly come up with "innovative" things that they actually saw from somewhere else and just happen to forget the source. Intelligence is like magic - every time a machine can do one thing on the list, it stops being intelligence, it's just engineering. Maybe intelligence really is just a big bag of tricks?
- stevenhuang 3y ago> fundamentally lacks We don't actually know that yet. It may very well fundamentally have all that is necessary for intelligence but other pieces are missing. Frontier neuroscience and functional processes for how our brains work has more in common with the fundamentals of LLMs than not, vis-a-vis minimization of prediction errors.
- kaba0 3y agoI don’t think “fundamentally having something” is actually meaningful here - as it’s enough to show it is Turing complete for it to have fundamentally everything. Nonetheless, it’s probably not excel that will become the next AGI.