[notahacker]

Not sure I follow the reply really.

In a discussion about whether LLMs could have agency and generalised reasoning ability, you suggested it was unfair because they hadn't received all the i/o a typical human did.

I pointed out that LLMs wouldn't be able to reason about that i/o (and if we made it fully fair and trained them on the comparatively small subset of text and discernible words humans learn from, they'd probably lose their facility with language too)

I don't disagree that bolting LLMs to other highly trained models like a program for controlling a robot arm and intensively training can yield useful results, arguably much more useful results than building a digital facsimile of a human toddler (toddlers produce pretty useless outputs but also have stuff going on internally we can barely begin to adequately replicate in silicon). But that isn't exposing an LLM to equivalents of human sensory input to get back an autonomous agent with generalised reasoning capacity, that's manually bolting together discrete specialised programs to an LLM as-message-passing-layer to have a machine which, given more training is capable of a slightly broader range of specialised tasks.