3 ms·

I still don't understand the insane investments in LLM with the believe that it will get us to AGI when that is not possible with LLM. The limitation isn't comp

I still don't understand the insane investments in LLM with the believe that it will get us to AGI when that is not possible with LLM. The limitation isn't compute or model size, it's the core concept of LLM.

sebzim4500 2y ago
Probably they just don't agree with you that LLMs (or derivatives) are incapable of achieving AGI.
eldenring 2y ago
Why don't you think its possible?
- sschueller 2y ago
  LLMs lack semantic understanding and rely on statistical patterns. They are reactive systems without goals, intentions, or the ability to self-improve. They also cannot generate truly novel ideas or concepts beyond their training data.
  - nbzso 2y ago
    You are using facts and logic. This is not the favorite HN food. Just believe, this is a religion. :)
- megous 2y ago
  Can it bootstrap a civilization and conquer the world from just sensory input, bunch of raw natural resources and ability to combine and manipulate them after several 10s of thousands of years with little prior knowledge?
GaggiX 2y ago
>when that is not possible with LLM. According to who? You?
K0balt 2y ago
It seems to me the definition of AGI is really important here. What does AGI mean today? What it used to mean, we passed by a while back. The old definition in the Research community was that AGI would be able to formulate solutions to novel problems that had not been defined by the programmers. Thus, the “general” intelligence. We’re talking about mouse level intelligence. That’s what AGI meant. LLMs have demonstrated broad problem solving capabilities across domains, and are capable of making inferences about things and developing a type of internal world model, all by encoding and parsing the cultural-linguistic framework recorded by humanity. We’re way past the old mark. Now, it seems, the qualification for AGI has been expanded to require: 1 a kind of agency 2 Superhuman accuracy and width/depth of knowledge 3 Vastly superhuman capacity to maintain thousands of simultaneous conversations with thousands of pages of context 4 A level of artistic proficiency, at least in imitation of artistic style So what does AGI mean now? In 1990, GPT4 would have been called a “limited super-intelligence” in the parlance of the day. Hell even an 8b model could have hit that mark, based on the breadth of accessible knowledge and ability to reason alone. I would venture to say that my uncle bob, or 10,000 uncle bobs, operating terminals in a pungent call center somewhere, would be deemed “not AGI yet” by current standards, and would be a hell of a lot less useful than an api for deepseek r1 32B. So, do humans of bog average intelligence not qualify as General intelligences? Or is it their capacity to do other things besides the call center job that makes them GI? If it’s the second option, how should we measure “call center intelligence” differently? We are using a benchmark we obviously have no metric for, at all.

sebzim4500 2y ago

Probably they just don't agree with you that LLMs (or derivatives) are incapable of achieving AGI.

eldenring 2y ago

Why don't you think its possible?

sschueller 2y ago
LLMs lack semantic understanding and rely on statistical patterns. They are reactive systems without goals, intentions, or the ability to self-improve. They also cannot generate truly novel ideas or concepts beyond their training data.
- nbzso 2y ago
  You are using facts and logic. This is not the favorite HN food. Just believe, this is a religion. :)
megous 2y ago
Can it bootstrap a civilization and conquer the world from just sensory input, bunch of raw natural resources and ability to combine and manipulate them after several 10s of thousands of years with little prior knowledge?

GaggiX 2y ago

>when that is not possible with LLM. According to who? You?

K0balt 2y ago

It seems to me the definition of AGI is really important here. What does AGI mean today? What it used to mean, we passed by a while back. The old definition in the Research community was that AGI would be able to formulate solutions to novel problems that had not been defined by the programmers. Thus, the “general” intelligence. We’re talking about mouse level intelligence. That’s what AGI meant. LLMs have demonstrated broad problem solving capabilities across domains, and are capable of making inferences about things and developing a type of internal world model, all by encoding and parsing the cultural-linguistic framework recorded by humanity. We’re way past the old mark. Now, it seems, the qualification for AGI has been expanded to require: 1 a kind of agency 2 Superhuman accuracy and width/depth of knowledge 3 Vastly superhuman capacity to maintain thousands of simultaneous conversations with thousands of pages of context 4 A level of artistic proficiency, at least in imitation of artistic style So what does AGI mean now? In 1990, GPT4 would have been called a “limited super-intelligence” in the parlance of the day. Hell even an 8b model could have hit that mark, based on the breadth of accessible knowledge and ability to reason alone. I would venture to say that my uncle bob, or 10,000 uncle bobs, operating terminals in a pungent call center somewhere, would be deemed “not AGI yet” by current standards, and would be a hell of a lot less useful than an api for deepseek r1 32B. So, do humans of bog average intelligence not qualify as General intelligences? Or is it their capacity to do other things besides the call center job that makes them GI? If it’s the second option, how should we measure “call center intelligence” differently? We are using a benchmark we obviously have no metric for, at all.