| TL;DR: They're close enough to make people argue and publish papers about similarities to the human hippocampus I have a hunch these models are approximating an important subset of what we call reasoning. In dangerously reductive terms, it's a question of how closely and how much of a function's output we can approximate. There was at least one paper[1] showing similarities between AI models and the hippocampus. That lines up with another part of human neuroscience: at least part of human reasoning appears to take place inside the hippocampus itself [2]. From my neuroscience background, the takeaways seem to be: * Carmack is right: we're missing some important bridging concepts for AGI. * Whether current LLMs can reason depends on how you define reasoning I'm unsure whether finding answers in those areas would be good thing. Instead of alignment issues or misuse, I'm more worried about how quickly people would overreact to it. We might already be seeing that in business. 1. https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.07356 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312239 |