That's not a good way to think about it.

Plenty of things could theoretically exist that aren't possible and likely will never be possible.

Like, sure, a Dyson sphere would solve our energy needs. We can't build one now and we almost certainly never will lol

"AGI" is theoretically feasible, sure. Our brains are just matter. But they're also an insanely complex and complicated system that came out of a billion years of evolution.

A little rinky dink statistical model doesn't even scratch the surface of it, and I don't understand why people think it does.

▲

danenania 2 days ago | parent [-]

> But they're also an insanely complex and complicated system that came out of a billion years of evolution.

As are birds, yet we can still build airplanes.

▲

player1234 a day ago | parent [-]

We know the laws of aerodynamics, what are the known laws of intelligence and consciousness you are replicating through other means with LLMs?

Weak ass gotcha, hang your head in shame, call your mom and tell her what a fraud you are.

	▲	danenania a day ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry you got triggered. I know it can be an emotional topic for some people. I'll try to explain in a simple way. We clearly are replicating at least some significant aspects of human intelligence via LLMs, despite biological complexity. So we obviously don't need a 100% complete understanding of the corresponding biology to build things which achieve similar goals. In other words, we can (conceivably) figure out how intelligence works and how to produce it independently of figuring out exactly how the human brain produces intelligence, just like we learned the laws of aerodynamics well enough to build airplanes independently of understanding everything about the biology of birds. Whether we will achieve this or not to the point of AGI is a separate engineering question. I'm only pointing out how flawed these lines of argument are.