this is why I have been arguing there will be no AGI
https://www.lycee.ai/blog/why-no-agi-openai
I agree with your blog, the definition itself is vague, and what people want to get out of it as well. There is a big “we’ll figure it out when we get there” attitude it seems to me.
Imagine a society where everything can be and is done by AGI (and its drones) what then? What do we want out of it? What will define humans in such an environment?
Crypto failed because it could never be honest about its trade offs and the reasons for centralization in the first place. It couldn’t be honest about its flaws because then VCs and private equity would make less money.
LLMs as an immediate panacea is failing because it can’t be honest about what actual intelligence is, where human-computer-interaction is, and its ultimate goal of culling jobs. It couldn’t be honest about its flaws because then VCs and private equity would make less money.
If only there was some pattern involved here we could avoid the pitfalls of these hype cycles - the pitfalls that end up in a whole lot of people being worse off and a couple new Lake Tahoe vacation home purchases.
You say no. I will have to disagree. Not in the fuzzy sense of "emergent = intelligent" people seem to be using. But in that LLMs are under the hood doing complex linear algebra, and when you pair numbers with words (or token word fragments), something like human language seems to emerge.
LLMs have no concept of language, just matrices. The fact that we can map language to matrices with training, and then matrices to language with generative transformers, doesn't mean there's anything like intelligence going on. It's just pattern matching all the way down. But a surrogate of NLP emerges out of this.