LLMs are tools in amplifying individual human intelligence, 100% of automony and will come from their user (human).
Also, even as tools they have fundamental limitations which stem from their autoregressive nature
Your argument, and Yann's, is that AGI, or what you call AGI, is a kind of quasi-intelligent golem that, despite being generally intelligent, doesn't have human-level intelligence. Your claim that it will never be human-equivalent, much less trans-human/ASI, is built into your worldview. It's not a conclusion. It's an assumption on your part.
People like you and Yann can believe that if you want, but you have no evidence, because nobody knows what's required for human-level intelligence. Nobody knows whether some kind of system involving neural nets could develop human-level intelligence or beyond. It could involve different architecture or training methods. There's no assumption by AI doomers that AGI will be achieved by a LLM with more parameters or more or better training data.
The only approach we will be able to claim objectively can produce systems with human-level intelligence is procreation.
Of course over 100 years later we know it's not only possible but manned flight is far more capable than natural flight in almost every metric.
I think this whole quote is riddled with assumptions in this debate.
What is human level? Is it really a "level" or is human level just a local variant in a space of possible intelligence varieties that maybe could be sorted along one dimension of levels of maybe multiple? Can it be super intelligent without being autonomous at all?
I'm not saying that you're wrong in just pointing out where people ought to have a myriad of different assumptions.
https://promptengineering.org/what-are-large-language-model-...
An early GPT-4 test ended up with GPT successfully solving capchas by tricking a TaskRabbit worker into doing it for them [1]. When asked by the worker if it was a robot, GPT decided to lie to the worker and claim it had a visual impairment that made it difficult to solve the puzzle. That sounds like a level of autonomy and social engineering skills that could be concerning to a reasonable person.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/gpt4-openai-chatgpt-taskrabb...
If it asks for the right to vote?
Here you are, trying to "outthink" an AI and speaking as if you understand (both the AI and the world of politics at the very least)! Isn't that silly!
Autonomy and self-sufficiency are not the only ways a system can be dangerous.
But even if this claim were true, ChaosGPT proves that some humans will almost immediately set about using such a non-autonomous tool to create a dangerous autonomous agent. This is my problem with LeCunn, nearly all of his points are trivially refuted by real world observations, yet he keeps repeating them as if they simply must be true.
> Also, even as tools they have fundamental limitations which stem from their autoregressive nature
That's yet another speculative point that LeCunn constantly asserts. Scaling laws have not shown any indication of even approaching a limit.
People dismiss LLMs because they are not embodied, and lack continuous training. That is to come.
So, more Ringo than Lenon?