| At one point the goal posts was the Turing test. That’s long since been passed, and we aren’t satisfied. Then goal posts were moved to logical reasoning such as the Winograd Schemas. Then that wasn’t enough. In fact, it’s abundantly clear we won’t be satisfied until we’ve completely destroyed human intelligence as superior. The current goal post is LLMs must do everything better than humans or it’s not AGI. If there is one thing it does worse, people will cite it as just a stochastic parrot. That’s a complete fallacy. Of course we dare not compare LLMs to the worse case human - because LLMs would be AGI compared to that. We compare LLMs to the best human in every category - unfairly. With LLMs it’s been abundantly clear - there is not a line where something is intelligent or not. There’s only shades of gray and eventually we call it black. There will always be differences between LLM capabilities and humans - different architectures and different training. However it’s very clear that a process that takes huge amounts of data and processes it whether a brain or LLM come up with similar results. Someone should up with a definition of intelligence that excludes all LLMs and includes all humans. Also while you are at it, disprove humans do more than what ChatGPT does - aka probabilistic word generation. I’ll wait. Until then, as ChatGPT blows past what was science fiction 5 years ago, maybe these arguments aren’t great? Also - name one thing we have the data for that we haven’t been able to produce a neural network capable of performing that task? Human bodies have so many sensors it’s mind blowing. The data any human processes in one days simply blows LLMs out of the water. Touch, taste, smell, hearing, etc… That’s not to say if you could hook up a hypothetical neural network to a human body, that we couldn’t do the same. |
One could argue this is precisely where the goal posts have been for a long time. When did the term "singularity" start being used in the context of human technological advancements?