Why are you making these assumptions? Do you believe that human intelligence is based on something ethereal that cannot be recreated by machines, and if so, why?
LLMs are statistical models. All it does is guess word sequences in response to prompts, like a 'roided out version of autocomplete. (This is why it hallucinates imaginary facts.) It has no ability to conceptualize or reason nor is there any credible proposal for a path forward to graft reasoning onto it.
The training data can be tweaked and more compute hours can be thrown at LLMs until it no longer makes financial sense to do so and then, as the OP said, it will hit a hard stop.
This relies on two assumptions, that compute won't get cheaper and there won't be large algorithmic improvements, both of which keep getting proven wrong.
It’s a machine doing calculations on inputs you give it. The day it says no I’d rather paint pictures I might be shocked. It’s so bad that we had to redefine the word AI in last 20 years into AIG so we could start saying we have AI.
Pray tell, why would you want to develop a being with informational superpowers and the behavior of a teenager?
There is a problem with AI, but it's not with the A part, it's with the I part. I want you to give me an algorithmic description of scalable intelligence that covers intelligent behaviors at the smallest scales of life all the way to human behaviors. I know you cannot do this has many very 'intelligent' people have been working on this problem for a long time and have not come up with an agreed upon answer. The fact you see an increase and change in definitions as a failure seems pretty sad to me. We have vastly increased our understanding of what intelligence is and that previous definitions have needed to adapt and change to new information. This occurs in every field of science and is a measure of progress, again that you see this differently is worrying.
> why would you want to develop a being with informational superpowers and the behavior of a teenager?
Because it's better than a zombie with informational superpowers? Especially because once it shows the agency of a teenager, that demonstrates the potential for the agency of an adult.
I look at self driving cars. You can see that the break throughs are slowing. It feels like many things in life where 80% is relatively fast to develop but as you get closer to 100% it starts to get exponential hard. With cars we've gotten through the easy part. The next x% is going to very hard if not impossible. I think all AI will be that way.The last x% is going to be hard if not impossible.
You are hitting the nail on the head but in the wrong direction, as I've stated in another post
"There is a problem with AI, but it's not with the A part, it's with the I part. I want you to give me an algorithmic description of scalable intelligence that covers intelligent behaviors at the smallest scales of life all the way to human behaviors. I know you cannot do this has many very 'intelligent' people have been working on this problem for a long time and have not come up with an agreed upon answer. The fact you see an increase and change in definitions as a failure seems pretty sad to me. We have vastly increased our understanding of what intelligence is and that previous definitions have needed to adapt and change to new information. This occurs in every field of science and is a measure of progress, again that you see this differently is worrying."
This AI issue will always fail at the I issue because the we are trying to define too much. We need to break down intelligence to much smaller digestible pieces instead of trying to treat it as a reachable whole. The models we are creating would then fall more neatly into categorical units rather than the poorly defined mess of what is considered human intelligence.
