[smeeger]

you are. just change a few words around and you would be reading the confidently incorrect predictions of essentially all scientists and engineers in 2010. you say LLMs wont get us there… and you personally would probably have said word2vec couldnt get us past the turing test… and here we are. citing the existence of a current technology as evidence that another technology, related or not, cannot exist, is lazy and stupid. the simple fact is that there has been an explosion in the progress recently… a corresponding explosion of funding and the specific purpose of every single dollar of research is to create AGI, whether through LLMs or some other framework. to dismiss this situation as totally unconcerning is literally FOOLISH

[bgnn]

That's good to hear that I'm foolish. It's always nice to be foolish.

Foolishness aside, all we have to predict the future is the current capabilities of the current technology. Bear and bull alike do this. This is the reason people believe we are closer to AGI than say couple of years ago. I have no idea how close or far off we are. What I'm interested in is the current and predictable near future capabilities of the technology.