3 ms·
I would argue that humanity has been advancing rather steadily towards "true AGI" since at least the Jacquard loom. Otherwise, if you wait to admit progress unt
by falcor84 2y ago
I would argue that humanity has been advancing rather steadily towards "true AGI" since at least the Jacquard loom. Otherwise, if you wait to admit progress until you actually have evidence for having achieved AGI, it'll just look like the Heaviside step function.
- nradov 2y agoHow can you claim that we've been advancing steadily when we don't even know how far the destination is, or if we're moving in the correct direction? There's no basis to claim that it will look anything like a step function; if we do achieve true AGI someday the first one might be equivalent to a really stupid person and then subsequent iterations will gradually improve from there. It seems like a lot of assumptions are being made.
- falcor84 2y agoYou're really not clear if we're moving in the correct direction? What then would be for you an indication that we are?
- nradov 2y agoShow me a computer that can reason in a generalized way at least as well as a chimpanzee (or whatever). And no, LLMs don't count. They are not generalized in any meaningful way.
- falcor84 2y agoPlease do clarify why LLMs aren't generalized - other than not being embodied, they seem quite general to me. Is there any particular reasoning task that you have in mind that chimpanzees are good at, but LLMs are incapable of?