[ftxbro]

They have known for a long time that text completion is what is called 'AI-complete' meaning that if you have full AGI then it can do human level text completion and if you have human level text completion then it can do full AGI. So they found a way, using an obscene number of model parameters and obscene compute power and obscene dataset size, to get really really good at text completion. So now they got these systems that, looking back, they are going to call just AGI. So in simpler words, it works because the computers brains got so big that they are now conscious like you and me.

[smoldesu]

> the computers brains got so big that they are now conscious like you and me.

I think this is the sort of gross misrepresentation that makes people convinced the computer is alive. I wouldn't really go there; they can produce text, but there's more to consciousness than convincing someone you're conscious. If I record a tape of myself saying "I am alive", the tape is not conscious. If I feed a markov chain texts on human consciousness, it will not become conscious. Now we train AI chatbots on replicating human responses, and people are willing to equate that to consciousness? It sounds like people lack context for what these models are in the first place.

[ftxbro]

> If I feed a markov chain texts on human consciousness, it will not become conscious.

I'm not sure about this one. These LLMs are technically Markov chains, in the most pedantic sense.

[ftxbro]

i hope it was clear that my last sentence wasn't to be taken 100% literally, like the robots don't literally have biological brains and they aren't literally natural persons under the legal system

[AdieuToLogic]

> They have known for a long time that text completion is what is called 'AI-complete' meaning that if you have full AGI then it can do human level text completion and if you have human level text completion then it can do full AGI.

First, who is "they"?

Second, categorizing "text completion" as being "AI-complete" is nonsensical if the definition[0] of "AI-complete" is agreed upon as being:

  In the field of artificial intelligence, the most
  difficult problems are informally known as AI-complete
  or AI-hard, implying that the difficulty of these
  computational problems, assuming intelligence is
  computational, is equivalent to that of solving the
  central artificial intelligence problem—making computers
  as intelligent as people, or strong AI.[1] To call a
  problem AI-complete reflects an attitude that it would
  not be solved by a simple specific algorithm.

Third, "text completion" has been a feature of messaging applications for years and has thus far not qualified as being an AGI.

Fourth, equating a predictive statistical model to "the computers brains got so big that they are now conscious like you and me" is not based in fact nor science.

LLM's have no provable consciousness. They do have utility in generating relevant tokens based on input tokens known to their training data set however.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-complete

[Someone]

> They have known for a long time […] if you have full AGI then it can do human level text completion and if you have human level text completion then it can do full AGI.

Do you have a reference for that? To me, that looks quite a jump from what I think we know: that we don’t even know how to define AGI.

Text completion, to me, also seems simpler than AGI, as the latter requires the ability to form completely novel ideas.