• douglasg14b@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    I very specifically did not mention LLMs, I even called out that our current technology is not there yet. And llms are current technology.

    The argument in thread was about AGI being impossible or possible. Not necessarily about the articles. Statement of llm-based agis not being possible, which is a pretty obvious and almost unnecessary statement.

    It’s like saying cars with tires and no airfoil surfaces aren’t going to fly. Yeah no shit.

    A fancy text prediction and marginal reasoning engine isn’t going to make AGI. By no means does that make AGI impossible though, since the concept of AGI is not tied to LLMs capabilities

    • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      You not mentioning LLMs doesn’t mean the post you were replying to wasn’t talking about LLM-based AGI. If someone responds to an article about the obvious improbability of LLM-based AGI with a comment about the obviously make-believe genie, the only obviously make-believe genie they could be referring to is the one from the article. If they’re referring to something outside the article, there’s nothing more to suggest it’s non-LLM-based AGI than there is Robin Williams’ character from Aladdin.