"Being right" seems to be an arbitrary and impossibly high bar. Human at their very best are only "looks right" creatures. I don't think that the goal of AGI is god-like intelligence.
Humans "at their very best" are at least trying to be right. Language models don't - they are not concerned with any notion of objective truth, or even with "looking right" in order to gain social status like some human bullshitter - they are simply babbling.
That this strategy is apparently enough to convince a large number of (supposedly) intelligent people otherwise is very troubling!
Not saying that General AI is impossible, or that LLMs couldn't be a useful component in their architecture. But what we have right now is just a speech center, what's missing is the rest of the brain.
Also, simply replicating / approximating something produced by natural evolution seems to me like the wrong approach, for both practical and ethical reasons: if we get something with >= human-like intelligence, it would be a black box we could never understand how any part of it actually works, and it might be a sentient being capable of suffering.
That this strategy is apparently enough to convince a large number of (supposedly) intelligent people otherwise is very troubling!
Not saying that General AI is impossible, or that LLMs couldn't be a useful component in their architecture. But what we have right now is just a speech center, what's missing is the rest of the brain.
Also, simply replicating / approximating something produced by natural evolution seems to me like the wrong approach, for both practical and ethical reasons: if we get something with >= human-like intelligence, it would be a black box we could never understand how any part of it actually works, and it might be a sentient being capable of suffering.