> Ilya says he thinks LLMs are capable of achieving AGI all by themselves, but there's no evidence of that and it's open for debate. This debate is probably mo

> Ilya says he thinks LLMs are capable of achieving AGI all by themselves, but there's no evidence of that and it's open for debate. This debate is probably mostly just an argument over semantics. What exactly do we mean by "Large Language Model"? What exactly do we mean by "Artifical General Intelligence"? On the strict end of things, if "LLM" the current state-of-the-art generative transformer architecture, and if we think that "general intelligence" requires something like sentience, or at least a certain capacity for flexible, iterative symbolic reasoning, then I think that most people would agree that LLMs clearly aren't any more capable of achieving artificial intelligence than a stock 1989 Buick LeSabre is of achieving sustained flight. But the more flexible you're willing to be about how you define "large language model" and "artificial general intelligence", the more room there is for it to be possible. But also, the less practical value there is in making such a statement. Beyond some hand-waviness event horizon, you can probably just declare that any model capable of handling natural language inputs and outputs is a language model, take a nice slow toke, and begin pontificating about the Church-Turing thesis.