We have not yet entered the AI age, though I believe we will.
LLMs are not AI. Machine learning is more useful. Perhaps they will evolve or perhaps they will prove a dead end.
LLMs are not AI. Machine learning is more useful. Perhaps they will evolve or perhaps they will prove a dead end.
LLMs are a particular application of machine learning, and as such LLMs both benefit by and contribute to general machine learning techniques.
I agree that LLMs are not the AI we all imagine, but the fact that it broke a huge milestone is a big deal - natural language used to be one of the metrics of AGI!
I believe it is only a matter of time until we get to a multi-sensory self-modifying large models which can both understand and learn from all five of human senses, and maybe even some of the senses we have no access to.
what if we have chosen a wrong metric there?
But they do close a big gap - they're capable of "understanding" fuzzy ill-defined sentences and "infer" the context, insofar as they can help formalize it into a format parsable by another system.
But that’s it. Nothing here has justified the huge amount of money that are still being invested here. It’s nowhere near useful as mainframes computing or as attractive as mobile phones.
There's no reason to assume that models trained to predict a plausible next sequence of tokens wouldn't eventually develop "understanding" if it was the most efficient way to predict them.
What changed is how we measure progress. This is common in the tech world - some times your KPIs become their own goal, and you must design new KPIs.
Obviously NLP was not a good enough predictor of progress towards AGI and we must find a better metric.