[d_tr]

This is very impressive, but since a biological brain is so much more complicated, who could really make a solid guess? Probably no one right now.

PaLM is not an attempt at AGI, a parameter is not equivalent to a neural connection, an activation function is not equivalent to a neuron (of which you have many different types), biological connection patterns are much richer, and biological stimuli are not like slideshows of a single type of data, so...

[zamfi]

I made no claims contrary to anything in your post; your response — none of which I disagree with — makes me worry that you are coming in with a preexisting belief and just looking for reasons it must be true.

That said, there are plenty of multimodal networks (ie not slideshows), and we know very little about the relevance to intelligence of the “richness” of neural connections, activations, etc. — but it’s inarguable that we’ve made great strides in scale alone.

[d_tr]

In your previous comment you seemed to suggest that we should not be very far. Maybe I misinterpreted you.

I do believe that AGI is possible and that it does not have to resemble a biological brain though.