4 ms·
An important stepping stone, perhaps. But I don’t think the final AGI thing will necessarily contain LLMs.
by jagged-chisel 6mo ago
An important stepping stone, perhaps. But I don’t think the final AGI thing will necessarily contain LLMs.
- lukan 6mo agoI don't know. I know I used to be pretty AI sceptic, until they became good enough to help with non trivial code problems on their own. I strongly suspect, that we will come to a point, where it gets impossible to tell if something is AGI and consciouss or not.
- dreis_sw 6mo agoHistory shows continuous evolution, there won't be a "final AGI thing". The definition of AGI is so vague anyways that any conversation around it is hardly useful. 5 years ago, what we have today would have been considered AGI.
- jagged-chisel 6mo ago> 5 years ago, what we have today would have been considered AGI. Were it you could pipe today’s LLM to an interface usable by someone 5 years ago, they might be impressed by the incremental improvement, but it would be obvious soon enough that it’s still not AGI.
- IAmBroom 6mo agoPerhaps Douglas-Adamsesque the LLMs will specify the AGI.