"Prove me wrong?" That's not how this works. Your implicit claim here is that human cognition and LLM functioning are fundamentally similar. That claim requires substantiation.
I'm getting so tired of listening to software engineers LARP pseudo neuroscientists with 6th grade level insights.
>Of course, the [AI] brain isn’t ‘conscious.’ It doesn’t have any survival instincts which we humans do.
Bruh...
What we know with a reasonably high level of certainty is that consciousness and "thought" are physical processes. That's about it.
Pulling out the scalpel to start dividing up what physical process is and isn't conscious is a fools errand. And especially foolish when just making up arbitrary qualifications for it.
Am I saying that ChatGPT is conscious? No. But I am saying is you shouldn't give much credence to people who are anything more than agnostic about it.
Feed forward networks are effectively DAGs, and circuit like, not TM like.
Caution is warranted when comparing perceptrons with biological neurons.
Dendrites can perform XOR operations before anything makes it to the soma for another lens.
While there is much to learn, here is one highly cited paper on dendritic compartmentalization.
https://mcgovern.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1-s2.0-S...
I think that the perceptron model of learning plasticity is on pretty shaky ground as being a primary learning model for humans.
So far as I know, whether the universe behaves deterministically remains an unsolved question. Given that, your statement here would already be one of belief rather than fact, even before we get to the parentheticals. There is information here, but not about whether LLMs can develop into AGI.
The original comment said:
> If you really think about what an LLM is you would think there is no way that leads to general purpose AI.
This is an inflammatory way to state an extreme position on a well-discussed debate over whether next-token prediction can lead to general intelligence. The original commenter clearly believes it can't get you there. If you want to say that with any authority, you need to have an answer for what is different between what we consider general intelligence (for most people, this is simply human intelligence) and what models are capable of. This is the question at the heart of artificial intelligence.
I challenged them to explain their answer. I made no claims, I asked no one to prove anything wrong. If it is obvious that LLMs can't be AGI, the answer to how an LLM differs from human intelligence is also obvious, right?
Your original comment was:
> It is an autoregressive sequence predictor/generator. Explain to me how humans are fundamentally different.
Which would be interpreted by most reasonable people as you making the claim that humans are autoregressive sequence predictors, and asking people to prove you wrong. I can see how you could say this without intending to make that claim, but most people will interpret this as you making that claim.
I do not intend to inflame things or discredit what you are saying, but just to say that if you did not intend to make a claim or ask people to prove you wrong, a different approach would be more successful in the future.
But I generally hold out hope that people can see a claim "A!=B" and a response "A=C, explain how C!=B" and understand that is not the same as claiming "C=B", especially on HN.
With all the wildly overheated claims that've been flying around since the advent of these models, I may be myself somewhat overfitted. Granted, in such an environment I feel like a little extra care for epistemic hygiene is warranted. But there was no reason for me to be rude about it.
I don't blame people for not wanting to talk this way.