|
|
|
|
|
|
by thordenmark
946 days ago
|
|
|
Well stated and I agree. LLM's are not anywhere near AGI and likely will not be ever. We've had random word generators for decades, useful for brainstorming, not so much for critical thinking. These LLM's are akin to random word generators with better grammar and a vastly larger database. We've all been playing with LLM's heavily since they became widely available, and the more we play with them the more we can see their limitations, they aren't "thinking" in any sense of the term. Bunch of chicken littles running around alarming people for little reason. The danger, of course, and we've known this for a long time is what bad actors will do with them. But we don't need to be lectured on how to be nice every time we prompt something. |
|
|
Sutskever himself thinks that LLM are enough to get us to AGI, but he conditioned that with the statement that we should think about how to reach AGI in a framework of efficiency, and that there will likely be better paths to AGI than LLMs that we haven’t yet discovered.
In all reality, when AGI comes I’m sure we’ll look back on LLMs the same way we look back on vacuum tubes in computers; as outdated, but useful for their time and a somewhat necessary stepping stone.