[earthnail]

You can look at very small creatures on earth and think "surely there is more to a human than to this ant". And sure, there is, but also, there isn't. Just as basic life evolves into more complex life, why shouldn't the underlying methods from the NASA in the late 70s evolve into ChatGPT and eventually AGI?

Simplifying things to this degree can show how you get from A to B.

[tomhoward]

We can see how an ant is a more primitive form of the same kind of thing that a human is, and though they're not on the same evolutionary path, we can see how humans evolved from the most primitive forms of life, because we know what the endpoint looks like.

We don't know what 70s AI and ChatGPT will evolve into. That's why everyone keeps debating and prognosticating about it, because nobody actually knows. But whatever people mean by AGI, we don’t know if it will or can evolve from the AI platforms that have come before.

We do know that the thing that evolved into ChatGPT is entirely different from primitive cellular life, so there's no reason to believe that ChatGPT will keep evolving into some kind of humanistic, self-aware intelligence.

[gwoolhurme]

I’m not the only one who thinks there is something missing though. That simplification does work to show how to get from A to B, but I don’t think it is analogous when we don’t really understand how we go to human intelligence. None of us were there. All I am saying is that simplifying even mammalian intelligence down to just an LLM doesn’t explain much to me. It might be the case that old 70s math proofs from NASA evolve into a mechanical intelligence maybe? I just personally think that isn’t the case. Humans run on a lot less overall power (though biological necessities like bathrooms and food are real), we also can learn even from less text than a machine and infer from experience. That might not convince you, or you might have your own ideas about what intelligence is.