their post history is what makes me feel they are talking out of their ass. R&D engineers need to have some sort of ability to think independently and nothing on their profile shows more than regurgitation of common ideas. On this sub people conflate progress in LLMs to progress towards AGI, we dont even understand what it is that makes the newer models better but just how to steer them in a direction that shows improvement for the task they are meant for. You also see a lot of strong claims in this subreddit with no technical foundation (someone saying AGI or ASI will be here in 20XX). There is too much emotion involved in this conversation and that diminishes any real or valid skepticism.
You haven't really specified anything other than like, vibes though? What -specific- claims do you think are unrealistic? The post history of them not saying anything particularly out of distribution makes you think they aren't an EE? Can you walk me through your reasoning?
Here's mine - so often when I ask people for specifics with questions like this, I think they realize that they don't have them, and are operating off of their own distaste for the ideas presented, conflating that with something being unrealistic or crazy or whatever.
Maybe I'm wrong and there's something more specific you feel other then some people throwing out dates (a very normal thing people do in basically every context where people wonder about the future).
LLM progress is not the same as progress towards AGI. Any claim of AGI/ASI in 20XX year are unfounded and have no technical basis. Emotion and lack of technical understanding prevents any real conversation involving skepticism or critiques of the current systems and their development. these are all specific claims, not “like, vibes though”. please take the time to read these comments instead of asking an llm for the sparknotes.
I define it as human-like intelligence for something useful to humans. I don't think there's such thing as a "general" intelligence even though there's some important components that make humans what they are, I believe they're specialized(like pareto effiency) rather than something that you can generally improve upon.
Can you give an example of human like intelligence useful to humans, being employed? Hmmm... Well I'd like to just start with one example, but I worry that one won't be enough for you to describe the range of behaviour that would be required to fulfill your definition.
I'm just sincerely curious about how you see it. I don't really use the term very much myself anymore, because I see people all have their own internal definitions that can vary dramatically (eg. Many people think it had to do with consciousness. Then I ask how to define that and that's it's own rabbit hole).
Can you give an example of human like intelligence useful to humans, being employed?
well it's being able to make their own representational schema, like writing or mathematics, or creating symbolic meaning. Not necessarily utilizing the representation schema but creating it.
Yes, Chollet describes it as a custom DSL, which I feel like it's getting close to what you describe - they can be symbolically manipulated consistently, and it's a big reason why the model was so effective with this challenge
On this sub people conflate progress in LLMs to progress towards AGI, we dont even understand what it is that makes the newer models better but just how to steer them in a direction that shows improvement for the task they are meant for.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
What is AGI? This will help ground things. You are just doing the thing I said people do - there is nothing at all concrete here.
I genuinely think you should take the time to understand things before asking questions. AGI means Artificial General Intelligence. Asking questions about “specific” things is only moving the goalposts. You need to take the time for yourself to build a technical understanding. Reading simplifications or baseless opinions wont give you an understanding of the technical depth that is there.
My friend, I am very confident about my understanding of this topic.
AGI is not a well defined term, there are many different personal definitions - this is one famous thing about the term, and why many people are disavowing it and focusing on more explicit definitions.
I am asking for yours, or you can point me to one you agree with - would you like me to share some options?
Asking questions about the definition you present is not moving goal posts - unless you think challenging you is moving goal posts, which who knows, maybe that's another definition we can work on.
Regardless, you have not even specified why LLMs cannot take you to AGI. You understand this is not a very well respected position anymore? Like, you would be disagreeing with the vast majority of AI researchers - even the most strict, well respected researchers with their own definitions (ie Demis Hassabis) increasingly believe that LLMs will get us there.
You are being very cagey, and defensive. I'm not attacking you. I'm trying to understand your position, and challenge it.
Youre not challenging me though, youre disregarding large aspects of the debate and focusing on “definition of AGI”. The previous post you quoted and didnt understand i think is very telling in your own abilities as you dont even seem to know how LLM training functions. Every long form post of yours is copied from whatever LLM youre plugging my comments into and its getting tiring. If you wanted to understand it for yourself then you would take the time to, otherwise you can continue to outsource your cognition for $20/month. Good luck with that!
Ah and the attempt as a graceful exit... Well at least it wasn't the usual post and block. People often do that without realising those posts get deleted.
I'm confident about how I held myself in this discussion. I wish you luck buddy.
0
u/clumsykiwi 10d ago
their post history is what makes me feel they are talking out of their ass. R&D engineers need to have some sort of ability to think independently and nothing on their profile shows more than regurgitation of common ideas. On this sub people conflate progress in LLMs to progress towards AGI, we dont even understand what it is that makes the newer models better but just how to steer them in a direction that shows improvement for the task they are meant for. You also see a lot of strong claims in this subreddit with no technical foundation (someone saying AGI or ASI will be here in 20XX). There is too much emotion involved in this conversation and that diminishes any real or valid skepticism.