undefined

points

[-]

>AGI won't rise out of AlphaZero and AlphaFold in the same way AGI won't rise out of Houdini chess engine.

That's a straw man. Nobody thinks AGI will rise out of domain-specific systems. The question is whether domain-specific systems are necessary for AGI.

Of course, the problem is that AGI isn't a well-defined concept. But if we define it as achieving superhuman performance across several hundred domains where there are objective measures of success, it doesn't seem far-fetched to predict that it will involve some general reasoning system paired with a bunch of specialized modules.

by simianwords1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

The parent said

> I don't foresee AGI arising out training bigger LLMs

I agree that AGI will involve tool usage but not only involving domain specific AI models.

But lets try to find the discriminating point in the discussion - do you believe AGI will necessarily involve training bigger LLM's or not?

I believe they are necessary. WBU?

by fasterik1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

You're still intentionally misreading the OP's statement. If you read it again in context, they're clearly saying that they think training bigger LLMs is not sufficient. I think I agree with that statement, but my confidence is pretty low.

No, I don't think LLMs are necessary for AGI at all. I think there are multiple paths to AGI, some of which involve LLMs and some which don't.

by dofm1 days ago|

prev|

[-]

AGI is a macguffin (or a shaggy dog) for a story told to investors. It has never been plausible on the timescales suggested and it almost certainly will not emerge from LLMs.