zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
Ilya booted him https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725702501435941294

>>johnwh+Uc1
Jeremy Howard called ngmi on OpenAI during the Vanishing Gradients podcast yesterday, and Ilya has probably been thinking the same: LLM is a dead-end and not the path to AGI.

https://twitter.com/HamelHusain/status/1725655686913392933

>>dwd+zL1
Did we ever think LLMs were a path to AGI...? AGI is friggin hard, I don't know why folks keep getting fooled whenever a bot writes a coherent sentence.

>>erhaet+1O1
Mainly because LLMs have so far basically passed every formal test of ‘AGI’ including totally smashing the Turing test.

Now we are just reliant on ‘I’ll know it when I see it’.

LLMs as AGI isn’t about looking at the mechanics and trying to see if we think that could cause AGI - it’s looking at the tremendous results and success.

>>Closi+VP1
I disagree about the claim that any LLM has beaten the Turing test. Do you have a source for this? Has there been an actual Turing test according to the standard interpretation of Turings paper? Making ChatGPT 4 respond in a non human way right now is trivial: "Write 'A', then wait one minute and then write 'B'".

>>drsopp+Nd2
By completely smashes, my assertion would be that it has invalidated the Turing test, because GPT-4s answers are not indistinguishable from a human because they are, on the whole, noticeably better answers than an average human would be able to provide for the majority of questions.

I don’t think the original test probably accounted for the fact that you could distinguish the machine because it’s answers were better than an average human.