| > We have artificial intelligence that is general and above average human intelligence for the vast majority of tasks it can perform. Even when I give it the benefit of the doubt, this sentence makes no sense to me. Do we have a list of tasks a language model can perform? To the best of my knowledge, they can arguably perform any language task. > Large enough LLMs crush anything else for any NLP task. and evidently they beat top humans too. Yes, they are certainly (rightfully) the go-to model for most tasks at this point if your concern is outright performance. Have I indicated otherwise? As for beating “top” humans, I am sure that can be investigated, but it is a fairly nuanced research question. It is inarguable that they are amazingly good though, especially relative to what we had just a few years ago. > Honestly, this whole "they are not intelligent" argument is becoming ridiculously obtuse.
>
> might as well argue that a plane isn’t a real bird or a car isn’t a real horse. Which is a claim and argument that I never made – hallucinating? How about you calm down a little and get back on the ground? You are talking to someone that has argued in favour of these kinds of models for about a decade. But that does not mean that I am willing to spout nonsense or lose track of what we know and what we do not yet know. |
no-one wants to call a spade a spade yet but the sentiment is obvious in recent research. directly being called General purpose technologies from the jobs paper, general artificial intelligence from the creativity paper. That last one is particularly funny, they just switched the two words.