I can’t read the site it requires subscription. But I and many other researchers disagree. George Hinton for example, massive disagreement. It’s not just LLMs

I can’t read the site it requires subscription. But I and many other researchers disagree. George Hinton for example, massive disagreement. It’s not just LLMs that were a leap and bound. For the past decade and more ML has been rising at a breakneck velocity. We see models for scene recognition, models that can read your mind, models that recognize human movement. We were seeing the pieces and components and amazing results constantly for over 10 years and this is independent of LLMs. And then everyone thinks AI is thousands of years away because we hit a small blip with LLMs in 2 years. And here’s the thing. The blip isn’t even solid. Like LLMs sometimes gets shit wrong and sometimes gets shit right we just can’t control it. Like we can’t definitively say LLMs can’t answer a specific question. Maybe another LLM can get it right, maybe if prompted a different way it will get it right. The other strange thing is that the LLM shows signs of lying. Like it’s not truthful. It has knowledge of the truth but the things purpose is not really to tell us the truth. I guess the best way to put it that current AI sometimes behaves like AGI and sometimes doesn’t. It is not consistently AGI. The fact that we built a machine that inconsistently acts like agi shows how freaking close we are. But the reality is no one understands how LLMs work. This fact is definitive. Like if you think we know how LLMs work then you are out of touch with reality. Nobody knows how LLMs work so this article and my write up are really speculation. We really dont know. But the 10 year trendline of AI in general is the one that has a more accurate trendline into future progress. Basing the future off a 2 year trendline of a specific problem with a specific model of ML of LLMs hallucinating is not predictive.