4 ms·
Trend lines don't always keep going up, in absolute terms or in their rate. And I'm skeptical that the nature of LLM technology specifically can achieve AGI, be
by AaronRossPowell 2y ago
Trend lines don't always keep going up, in absolute terms or in their rate. And I'm skeptical that the nature of LLM technology specifically can achieve AGI, because it's at base a prediction model (though an incredibly sophisticated and powerful one) and not actual intelligence. To think that LLMs can grow into AGI is, thus, a category mistake, even if they get better at what they do, and even if they prove super useful in all kinds of ways.
- jimbokun 2y agoCurrent LLMs are already far beyond what a "prediction model" might be capable of.
- dinfinity 2y agoUntil you define "actual intelligence" and how the (human) brain produces it, it is nonsense to state that a "prediction model" is not "actual intelligence". It's just a form of the no true Scotsman fallacy. This line of thinking is also very closely related to the similarly misguided Chinese Room thought experiment by Searle. "It just inputs and outputs symbols" (or "it just predicts the next word") misses the enormous wealth of complexity that goes into how to get from input to output and just handwaving it away is intellectual poverty. With regard to the rate of progress and potential: Don't forget that the biological difference between humans and animals is tiny, yet the difference in ("actual") intelligence is enormous. This is not to say that LLMs (and its offspring) are guaranteed to only need small tweaks, but it very well might suffice to reach AGI as you would define it. Sidenote: Stop using the word "techbro". It is sexist, polarizing, and childish. Just because they're the bad guys doesn't make it okay.