Did you criticize the turing test as being meaningless before it was easily passed by LLMs? if not i don't see how you can avoid updating on "this is getting more human" or at least "this is getting closer to intelligence" to avoid the human-bias
I've always been more interested in the non-verbal aspects of human intelligence. I believe that "true AGI", whatever that is, is likely to be able to mimic sentient but non-verbal species. I'd like to see an AGI do what a dog or cat does.
LLMs are quite astonishing at mimicking something humans specifically do, the most "rational" parts of our brain. But they seem to jump past the basic, non-rational parts of the brain. And I don't think we'll see it as "true AGI" until it does that -- whatever that is.
I'm reminded of the early AI researchers who taught AI to play chess because it's what smart people do, but it couldn't do any of the things dumb people do. I think the biggest question right now is whether our present techniques are a misleading local maximum, or if we're on the right slope and just need to keep climbing.
then how are you qualified to even discuss this? shouldn't you have to have actually had a thought about something before you pretend to know something about it? i mean its pretty clear from your comment that you havent thought about AI for more than a year or two
Based on the top page today I may even be able to make the argument we can't even simulate the abilities of a fruit fly.
The absolute frontier models can perform only a fraction of a fraction of what a typical work day looks like for a human. I calculated the chance that a frontier model today has about a 1^-29 chance of performing a single day of connected tasks based on GAIA benchmarks.