| >It's just a statistical model is the logical equivalent of human beings are just a bunch of atoms. Not exactly. One says "human beings are just a bunch of atoms" referring to the low level constituans (in a reductionistic way), but not making an accessment about the abilities emerging from those atoms in their interactions when in the form of a human. But when one says that GPT is "just a statistical model" they're implying a capacity cap of statistical models, that makes modelling certain thinking behavior impossible (regarless of how impressive the current results are, they might very well be capped to go beyond some limit because of the method -statistically model- involved). So, you can consider "GPT is just a statistical model" analogous to: "This engine can't parse a context senstive language because it's just a regular expression engine". >First define AGI then challenge an AI to meet those requirements. If it meets them it is AGI. Put aside your preconceptions of what technology you think is required to achieve the goals and stay empirical. The problem is definitions can be slippery, and even famous tests (like the Turing Test) might be found lacking in practice, as we discover that, yes, it can pass this test, but there's still ways off what we consider human-like performance in many areas. So, we should also stay empirical about the definitions, tests, and goals too. |
Except there is no “capacity cap” on statistical models, we have no idea what they are or are not capable of yet.