> nowhere near AGI, and LLMs are not going to lead to it either.

Nevermind what they can do was pure science fiction just 3 years ago?

bigfishrunning an hour ago | parent | next [-]

What they can do was not science fiction, these things are all based on papers that were written decades ago, with the caveat that there's simply not enough compute power. Now there is. That's what changed. Everything on top of that is an incremental improvement.

It doesn't change the fact that LLMs are not, and never will be, AGI.

▲

vardalab an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Exactly. Here I am sitting talking to my freaking computer, arguing with it, whatnot. And people just dismiss it as if it's not a science fiction. We were not there two, three years ago. Now we are. It's amazing and scary, scary mostly because the society that we operate in. I bet it's less scary in Norway or elsewhere where govt is more biased towards people not corps.

	▲	grey-area 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They are good at fooling people.

▲

amake an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you claiming they have AGI or are "close" to it?

	▲	SpicyLemonZest an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. I think cutting-edge LLM products obviously have what nearly anyone in 2020 would have called "artificial general intelligence". The shape of the intelligence frontier has turned out to be much more jagged than anyone at the time expected, so I can imagine reasonable objections from someone who has a specific, concrete benchmark of AGI that wasn't invented 6 months ago and isn't yet met. If someone just has a subjective sense that they're not smart enough, I think they're wrong.