Since we’re pulling numbers out of our ass, I think AGI is 500 years away. But really, I don’t know how we’re going to define it, but if AGI means computers can outperform me at all cognitive tasks, I’d bet money that’s not going to arrive this century.

People are starting to get catch on, but most non-tech people don’t use LLMs for anything more than simple questions that can be easily answered by summarizing regurgitated snippets of training data. To them, it looks intelligent. And yeah, the humans who wrote the training samples it regurgitated probably were intelligent.

It’s just a fact, one that becomes glaringly obvious when you use LLMs daily to do real work, that this is just not the tech that will lead to AGI.

They found a really clever pattern matching technique that, when combined with absurd amounts of data and compute, can reproduce plausible summaries of training data which can be stitched together in useful ways. It’s a useful tool. But the whole AGI conversation is so absurdly far away from this that it’s just clear that these guys pushing a very dishonest grift.