The title seems to suggest the author is talking about AGI - if the author is just co-opting the latest Trumpism, forget the rest of this...
I don't think we're anywhere near AGI yet. We have some clever models, sure, and outputs are getting better and better, but they're hardly AGI - the biggest missing bit being that they don't learn from experience - even "memories" which are carried from chat to chat are limited (and, in my experience, there's a 50/50 chance they just get ignored - I've had several rounds of "why did you do that, when I explicitly asked you not to?" with a back-pedal from the model).
IMO, AGI will not be achieved via LLMs. There has to be a radical change in how these things are built, and my feeling is that we should be working off of modelling what we understand of neurons in humans and animals. /2c
davydm•28m ago
I don't think we're anywhere near AGI yet. We have some clever models, sure, and outputs are getting better and better, but they're hardly AGI - the biggest missing bit being that they don't learn from experience - even "memories" which are carried from chat to chat are limited (and, in my experience, there's a 50/50 chance they just get ignored - I've had several rounds of "why did you do that, when I explicitly asked you not to?" with a back-pedal from the model).
IMO, AGI will not be achieved via LLMs. There has to be a radical change in how these things are built, and my feeling is that we should be working off of modelling what we understand of neurons in humans and animals. /2c