I'm not sure you realize this, but that is literally what this article was written to explore!
Yeah but it's "exploration" answers all the reasonable objections by just extrapolating vague "smartness" (EDITED [1]). "LLMs seem smart, more data will make 'em smarter..."
If apparent intelligence were the only measure of where things are going, we could be certain GPT-5 or whatever would reach AGI. But I don't many people think that's the case.
The various critics of LLMs like Gary Marcus make the point that while LLMs increase in ability each iteration, they continue to be weak in particular areas.
My favorite measure is "query intelligence" versus "task accomplishment intelligence". Current "AI" (deep learning/transformers/etc) systems are great at query intelligence but don't seem to scale in their "task accomplishment intelligence" at the same rate. (Notice "baby AGI", ChatGPT+self-talk, fail to produce actual task intelligence).
[1] Edited, original "seemed remarkably unenlightening. Lots of generalities, on-the-one-hand-on-the-other descriptions". Actually, reading more closely the article does raise good objections - but still doesn't answer them well imo.
I’ve also heard it said that “apparent” intelligence is good enough to be called “real” intelligence if it’s indistinguishable from the real thing. That’s where I have a strong feeling that we’re missing the true meaning of intelligence, reasoning and consciousness.
As you said, we may very well be a couple iterations away from a chatbot that is truly indistinguishable from a human, but I still strongly assert that even a perfectly coherent chatbot is nothing more than an automaton and we humans are not automatons.
The fact that a couple replies in this thread made me feel defensive and a bit discouraged with their condescending tone is to me an internal reaction that an LLM or similar system will never have. Maybe an appropriate emotional reaction can be calculated and simulated, but I think the nature of the experience itself is truly beyond our current comprehension.
Maybe I’m grasping at the metaphysical to rationalize my fear that we’re on the cusp of understanding consciousness… and it turns out to be pretty boring and will be included with Microsoft O365 in a couple years.
I agree with you, but I think it's more of a philosophical topic (ie. Chinese Room argument) than something that technicians working on raw LLM capabilities usually care to engage in. For them, the Turing Test and utility in applications are the most important thing.
Personally, I don't think we can construct an equivalent intelligence to a human out of silicon. That's not say AGI is unachievable or that it can't surpass human intelligence and be superficially undistinguishable from a human, but it will always be different and alien in some way. I believe our intelligence is fundamentally closer to other earth animals descended from common genetic ancestors than it can be to an artificial intelligence. As the creators of AI, we can and will paper over these differences enough to Get The Job Done™, but the uncanny valley will always be there if you know where to look.
Yeah but it's "exploration" answers all the reasonable objections by just extrapolating vague "smartness" (EDITED [1]). "LLMs seem smart, more data will make 'em smarter..."
If apparent intelligence were the only measure of where things are going, we could be certain GPT-5 or whatever would reach AGI. But I don't many people think that's the case.
The various critics of LLMs like Gary Marcus make the point that while LLMs increase in ability each iteration, they continue to be weak in particular areas.
My favorite measure is "query intelligence" versus "task accomplishment intelligence". Current "AI" (deep learning/transformers/etc) systems are great at query intelligence but don't seem to scale in their "task accomplishment intelligence" at the same rate. (Notice "baby AGI", ChatGPT+self-talk, fail to produce actual task intelligence).
[1] Edited, original "seemed remarkably unenlightening. Lots of generalities, on-the-one-hand-on-the-other descriptions". Actually, reading more closely the article does raise good objections - but still doesn't answer them well imo.