4 ms·
The model is probably excellent. The problem here is AGI having various definitions and many of them getting narrowed down to whatever makes benchmark numbers l
by kulkarniamey 1mo ago
The model is probably excellent. The problem here is AGI having various definitions and many of them getting narrowed down to whatever makes benchmark numbers look good.
- altcognito 1mo agoI'm not sure how you call a model AGI without it learning new information at the model level and not introducing nasty surprises (both from adversarial users and unintentional badness) I guess there is fine tuning (and RAG) for those that need something bigger than just the knowledge contained in the context.
- Sankozi 1mo agoThe same is for humans, we don't learn on instinct level either.
- ramblerman 1mo agoI agree, but I also long considered llm's stochastic parrots. Then this year happened. Opus/Sol are easily far smarter programmers than I, and this thing supposedly blows them out of the water. Once an LLM is a better doctor, researcher, biologist, chemist, mathematician, physicist than any human is that not AGI? It didn't arrive in the form I would have ever imagined, but it's hard to say its not (imo).