> But few if any humans on earth can demonstrate the breadth and depth of competence that a SOTA model possesses.
Most humans can count the occurrence of letters in a word. The word competence here is doing quite a bit of work. I think most people understand competence to mean more than just encyclopedic knowledge, with very limited reasoning capability.
> AGI never meant human level intelligence until the LLM age. It just meant that a system could generalize one domain from knowledge gained in other domains without supervision or programming.
I think it's probably correct to say that many people who seriously studied the problem had a larger notion of AGI than the layperson who only ever talked about the Turing test in the most basic terms. Also, I don't think LLMs have even convincingly demonstrated a great ability to generalize.
They're basically really great natural language search engines but for the fact that they give incorrect but plausible answers about 5-10% of the time.
>> they give incorrect but plausible answers about 5-10% of the time.
This describes most of the human population as well. Why do we expect machines to be more accurate and perfect in their correctness than humans before we say they are at parity, when they are clearly savant as much as idiot. It’s a strange bias.
Most humans can count the occurrence of letters in a word. The word competence here is doing quite a bit of work. I think most people understand competence to mean more than just encyclopedic knowledge, with very limited reasoning capability.
> AGI never meant human level intelligence until the LLM age. It just meant that a system could generalize one domain from knowledge gained in other domains without supervision or programming.
I think it's probably correct to say that many people who seriously studied the problem had a larger notion of AGI than the layperson who only ever talked about the Turing test in the most basic terms. Also, I don't think LLMs have even convincingly demonstrated a great ability to generalize.
They're basically really great natural language search engines but for the fact that they give incorrect but plausible answers about 5-10% of the time.