• areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    There is a lot that can be discussed in a philosophical debate. However, any 8 years old would be able to count how many letters are in a word. LLMs can’t reliably do that by virtue of how they work. This suggests me that it’s not just a model/training difference. Also evolution over million of years improved the “hardware” and the genetic material. Neither of this is compares to computing power or amount of data which is used to train LLMs.

    Actually humans have more computing power than is required to run an LLM. You have this backwards. LLMs are comparably a lot more efficient given how little computing power they need to run by comparison. Human brains as a piece of hardware are insanely high performance and energy efficient. I mean they include their own internal combustion engines and maintenance and security crew for fuck’s sake. Give me a human built computer that has that.

    Anyway, time will tell. Personally I think it’s possible to reach a general AI eventually, I simply don’t think the LLMs approach is the one leading there.

    I agree here. I do think though that LLMs are closer than you think. They do in fact have both attention and working memory, which is a large step forward. The fact they can only process one medium (only text) is a serious limitation though. Presumably a general purpose AI would ideally have the ability to process visual input, auditory input, text, and some other stuff like various sensor types. There are other model types though, some of which take in multi-modal input to make decisions like a self-driving car.

    I think a lot of people romanticize what humans are capable of while dismissing what machines can do. Especially with the processing power and efficiency limitations that come with the simple silicon based processors that current machines are made from.