This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective. At some point in our past, we were something much less intelligent than we are now. Our intelligence didn't spring out of thin air. Whether or not AI can evolve is yet to be seen I think.

I could gather that you disagreed with GP, but I don't see a salient point in your response? You are ostensibly challenging GP on the idea that a homo sapien baby from 200,000 years ago would have been capable of modern mental feats if raised in the present day.

> This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective.

Nice, seems like you have something meaningful to add.

> At some point in our past, we were something much less intelligent than we are now.

I agree with this, but "at some point in our past"? Is that the essence of this rebuttal?

> Our intelligence didn't spring out of thin air.

Again, I could not tell what this means, nor do I see the relevance.

> Whether or not AI can evolve is yet to be seen I think.

The OP is very pointedly talking about LLMs. Is that what you mean to reference here with "AI"?

I implore you to contribute more meaningfully. Especially when leading with statements like "This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective", you ought to elaborate on them. However, your username suggests maybe you are just trolling?

Sure, but then basically whatever it was, it was not "us". "Us" and our intelligence had to appear at some point. It's 100% not "anti-evolutionary" to say some years ago humans became as mentally capable as a baby born today. We just have to figure out how many years ago that was. It wasn't last decade. As far as I know most anthropologists agree it was around ~70k years ago (not 200k).

LLMs are not AGI, something else may be in the future. Acknowledging this has nothing to do with evolution.