3 ms·
"Won't happen for 4+ years" and "mathematically impossible" are quite different. Given that humans apparently exhibit the "GI" part of "AGI", I find "mathematic
by SAI_Peregrinus 8mo ago
"Won't happen for 4+ years" and "mathematically impossible" are quite different. Given that humans apparently exhibit the "GI" part of "AGI", I find "mathematically impossible" difficult to believe. "Extremely unlikely with current LLM architecture", sure, but that's a very different statement from "mathematically impossible".
- 0xy 8mo agoIf you are making a prediction on the viability of AGI assuming that an entirely new technology will make the efficiency problem of LLMs moot then you're essentially engaging in mysticism, aren't you? It is correct to say it is mathematically impossible, as all the people making AGI claims rely upon advances that are not even theoretical, they have not even been discovered yet, and the mere possibility of them is questioned by many scientists. LLMs have hard and soft limits all over the place preventing AGI. You aren't gonna train and loop yourself to AGI because the compute does not exist, and will not exist. My 4+ year point was for a single memory fab. Increasing capacity by merely 5% (generous assumption) takes 4 years and $10bn. It's starting to sound like the path to AGI in the current paradigm will cost infinite dollars and take infinite years of build-out. Even with a transformational efficiency breakthrough, you still have hard limits all over the place. Where are you going to store all the data? Memory constraints again.