3 ms·

Because that's quite a bit more information processing than any human brain

• lukan 1y ago
  I don't think it is quantity that matters. Otherwise supercomputers are smart by definition.
  • mgraczyk 1y ago
    Well no, that's not what anyone is saying. The claim was that it isn't possible in principle for "DAGs" or "immutable architectures" to be intelligent. That statement is confusing some theoretical results that aren't applicable to how LLMs work (output context is mutation). I'm not claiming that compute makes the m intelligent. I'm pointing out that it is certainly possible, and at that level of compute it should be plausible. Feel free to share any theoretical results you think demonstrate the impossibility of "DAG" intelligence and are applicable
    • lukan 1y ago
      I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying it might be possible, but far from plausible with the current approach of LLMs in my experience with them.