zlacker

>>Tenoke+(OP)
I think we've actually had capable AIs for long enough now to see that this kind of exponential advance to AGI in 2 years is extremely unlikely. The AI we have today isn't radically different from the AI we had in 2023. They are much better at the thing they are good at, and there are some new capabilities that are big, but they are still fundamentally next-token predictors. They still fail at larger scope longer term tasks in mostly the same way, and they are still much worse at learning from small amounts of data than humans. Despite their ability to write decent code, we haven't seen the signs of a runaway singularity as some thought was likely.

I see people saying that these kinds of things are happening behind closed doors, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence of it, and there is enormous propensity for AI speculation to run rampant.

>>Vegeno+xv3
> They are much better at the thing they are good at, and there are some new capabilities that are big, but they are still fundamentally next-token predictors.

I don't really get this. Are you saying autoregressive LLMs won't qualify as AGI, by definition? What about diffusion models, like Mercury? Does it really matter how inference is done if the result is the same?

>>Comple+6Q3
> Are you saying autoregressive LLMs won't qualify as AGI, by definition?

No, I am speculating that they will not reach capabilities that qualify them as AGI.

>>Vegeno+aT3
They will, we just need meatspace people to become dumber and more predictable. Making huge strides on that front, actually. (In no small part due to LLMs themselves, yeah.)