On one hand, I agree - we shouldn't diminish the very real capabilities of these models with tech skepticism. On the other hand, I disagree - I believe this approach is unlikely to lead to human-level AGI.
Like so many things, the truth probably lies somewhere between the skeptical naysayers and the breathless fanboys.
You might not be fooled by a conversation with an agent like the one in the promo video, but you'd probably agree that somewhere around 80% of people could be. At what percentage would you say that it's good enough to be "human-level?"
I think people will quickly learn with enough exposure, and then that percentage will go down.
The one you catch is the tip of the iceberg.
Same will happen to speech. Might take a few years, but it'll be indistinguishable in a max a few years. Due to compute increase + model improvement, both improving exponentially.
So that we're all clear the basis for this analysis is purely made up, yes?
If we have to damn rivers and build new coal plants to power these AI data centers, then it may be one step forward and two steps back.
Well spoken and well mannered speakers will be called bots. The comment threads under posts will be hurtling insults back and forth on who's actually real. Half the comments will actually be bots doing it. Welcome to the dead internet.
We need to stop these hateful ai companies before they ruin society as a whole!
Seriously though... the internet is dead already, and it's not coming back to what it was. We ruined it, not ai.
As has been suggested, the models will get better at a faster rate than humans will get smarter.
They are referring to an AI that can use reasoning, deduction, logic, and abstraction like the smartest humans can, to discover, prove, and create novel things in every realm that humans can: math, physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, art, sociology, etc.