3 ms·
"LLMs" are already just a part of many papers coming out. They are a convenient primitive. The current work relevant to AGI is mostly not "just" LLMs (while pro
by creer 3y ago
"LLMs" are already just a part of many papers coming out. They are a convenient primitive. The current work relevant to AGI is mostly not "just" LLMs (while progress continues on the LLMs themselves.)
Saying an LLM (itself) is not intelligent is not useful to the AGI conversation (because AGI architectures are past that already). It's also close to saying "software is just tools that therefore cannot be intelligent". Meaning that it dimisses the entire conversation by definition.
BUT this has long raised interesting questions on how much of intelligence is merely contained or encapsulated in language. That is how much of our brain and language "mostly" just mirror each other. Brain adds visual or audio matching obviously, and body integration. Language adds long term persistence. But otherwise?
- proc0 3y agoLLMs are the most advanced AI so far, so not sure what you mean. > software is just tools that therefore cannot be intelligent That's clearly the case for all other software, i.e. Word, web apps, games. Sure we can call AI "intelligent", but I'm pointing out a semantic difference that is convenient for the marketing but also misleading for the average person. If we're strict about what "intelligence" means, then we can clearly and obviously see that there is no such thing as a piece of software that you can interact with as if it were another person, that undrestands the world, models the world, models the mind of other people and its own mind. Current AI is intelligent in the way that smart phones are smart. That said, I'm not saying it's impossible, but rather that generative AI, while complicated, is still a deterministic black box, and not a sentient, dynamic mind.