> It sounds like you agree with me that smaller programs are both more efficient and more effective than a larger neural net. At playing chess. (But also at d

> It sounds like you agree with me that smaller programs are both more efficient and more effective than a larger neural net. At playing chess. (But also at doing sums and multiplications, yay!) > So you should also agree with me that those who say the only path to AGI is LLM maximalism are misguided. No. First of all, it's a claim you just made up. What we're talking about is people saying that LLMs are not the path to AGI- an entirely different claim. Second, assuming there's any coherence to your argument, the fact that a small program can outclass an enormous NN is irrelevant to the question of whether the enormous NN is the right way to achieve AGI: we are "general intelligences" and we are defeated by the same chess program. Unless you mean that achieving the intelligence of the greatest geniuses that ever lived is still not enough.