[nutjob2]

That's not his point at all. He advocates using LLMs.

The correct analogy is: if we just scale and improve steel enough, we'll get a flying car.

[lukan]

Well, we did build airplanes out of steel, but there are better (lighter) materials avaiable. But the developement of car engines did directly enabled airplane engines. Not sure if this is the right analogy path, but I kind of suspect similar with LLM's/transformers. They will be a important part.

[jagged-chisel]

An important stepping stone, perhaps. But I don’t think the final AGI thing will necessarily contain LLMs.

[lukan]

I don't know. I know I used to be pretty AI sceptic, until they became good enough to help with non trivial code problems on their own.

I strongly suspect, that we will come to a point, where it gets impossible to tell if something is AGI and consciouss or not.

[dreis_sw]

History shows continuous evolution, there won't be a "final AGI thing". The definition of AGI is so vague anyways that any conversation around it is hardly useful. 5 years ago, what we have today would have been considered AGI.

[jagged-chisel]

> 5 years ago, what we have today would have been considered AGI.

Were it you could pipe today’s LLM to an interface usable by someone 5 years ago, they might be impressed by the incremental improvement, but it would be obvious soon enough that it’s still not AGI.

[IAmBroom]

Perhaps Douglas-Adamsesque the LLMs will specify the AGI.

[nutjob2]

> Well, we did build airplanes out of steel, but there are better (lighter) materials avaiable.

That's exactly my point. In this analogy LLMs are steel, but the flying things are made out of aluminum, lithium and titanium and not steel. We need a better idea than LLMs because LLMs's are not suddenly going to turn into something they are not.

[someguyiguess]

We literally did that though. Walk outside and look up.