RewindAgain@futurology.today to Futurology@futurology.todayEnglish · 7 days agoGame over. AGI is not imminent, and LLMs are not the royal road to getting there.garymarcus.substack.comexternal-linkmessage-square70fedilinkarrow-up1131arrow-down15
arrow-up1126arrow-down1external-linkGame over. AGI is not imminent, and LLMs are not the royal road to getting there.garymarcus.substack.comRewindAgain@futurology.today to Futurology@futurology.todayEnglish · 7 days agomessage-square70fedilink
minus-squarem532@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·7 days agoNo, the first chatbots didn’t have neural networks inside. They didn’t have intelligence.
minus-squarebooty [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down1·edit-27 days agoLLMs aren’t intelligence. We’ve had similar technology in more primitive forms for a long time, like Markov chains. LLMs are hyper specialized at passing a turing test but are not good at basically anything else.
minus-squarem532@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·7 days agoA turing test has nothing to do with intelligence.
minus-squarebooty [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·6 days agoWhat is your point?
minus-squarebooty [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-26 days agoI didn’t say turing tests had anything to do with intelligence. I didn’t define intelligence at all. What are you even talking about?
No, the first chatbots didn’t have neural networks inside. They didn’t have intelligence.
LLMs aren’t intelligence. We’ve had similar technology in more primitive forms for a long time, like Markov chains. LLMs are hyper specialized at passing a turing test but are not good at basically anything else.
A turing test has nothing to do with intelligence.
What is your point?
You define intelligence wrong.
I didn’t say turing tests had anything to do with intelligence. I didn’t define intelligence at all. What are you even talking about?