Hacker News Reader

Comment by buildbot | Hacker News Reader

The industry has been doing RL on many kinds of neural networks, including LLMs, for quite some time. Is this person saying we RL on some kind of non neural network design? Why is that more likely to bring AGI than an LLM?.

> More specifically, LLMs don't have goals and consequences of actions, which is the foundation for intelligence.

Citation?

View on HN

Looks like they added the link. But I think it’s doing RL in realtime vs pre-trained as an LLM is.

And I associate that part to AGI being able to do cutting edge research and explore new ideas like humans can. Where, when that seems to “happen” with LLMs it’s been more debatable. (e.g. there was an existing paper that the LLM was able to tap into)

I guess another example would be to get an AGI doing RL in realtime to get really good at a video game with completely different mechanics in the same way a human could. Today, that wouldn’t really happen unless it was able to pre-train on something similar.

I don't think any of the commercial models are doing RL at the consumer. The R is just accepting or rejecting the action, right?

Why are you asking them to cite something for that statement? Are you questioning whether it's the foundation for intelligence or whether LLMS understand goals and consequences?

Yes, I'm questioning if that's the foundation of intelligence. Says who?

Richard Sutton. He won a Turing Award. Why ask your question above when you can just watch the YouTube link I posted?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com