RewindAgain@futurology.today to Futurology@futurology.todayEnglish · 2 months agoGame over. AGI is not imminent, and LLMs are not the royal road to getting there.garymarcus.substack.comexternal-linkmessage-square70fedilinkarrow-up1133arrow-down15cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up1128arrow-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 · 2 months agomessage-square70fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squarem532@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·2 months agoNo, the first chatbots didn’t have neural networks inside. They didn’t have intelligence.
minus-squarebooty [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down1·edit-22 months 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-down1·2 months agoA turing test has nothing to do with intelligence.
minus-squarebooty [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·2 months agoWhat is your point?
minus-squarebooty [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-22 months 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?