zlacker

>>jnnnth+(OP)
This won't make a dent in the logical armor of AI optimists:

[ ] If you are not intimately familiar with the development of AI, your warnings on safety can be disregarded due to your basic ignorance about the development of AI

[x] If you are intimately familiar with the development of AI, your warnings on safety can be disregarded due to potential conflicts of interest and koolaid drinking

Unbridled optimism lives another day!

>>llamai+lg
That's an over complication, how about my naive belief that LLMs (and increasing the size of) don't lead to AGI.

Not saying AGI is impossible, just think the large models and the underlying statistic model beneath are not the path.

>>Aperoc+hh
LLMS don't have to be smart enough to be AGI. They just have to be smart enough to create AGI. And if creating something smarter than yourself sounds crazy, remember that we were created by simpler ancestors that we now effortlessly dominate.