• suy@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Lol. We’re as far away from getting to AGI as we were before the whole LLM craze. It’s just glorified statistical text prediction, no matter how much data you throw at it, it will still just guess what’s the next most likely letter/token based on what’s before it, that can’t even get it’s facts straith without bullshitting.

    This is correct, and I don’t think many serious people disagree with it.

    If we ever get it, it won’t be through LLMs.

    Well… depends. LLMs alone, no, but the researchers who are working on solving the ARC AGI challenge, are using LLMs as a basis. The one which won this year is open source (all are if are eligible for winning the prize, and they need to run on the private data set), and was based on Mixtral. The “trick” is that they do more than that. All the attempts do extra compute at test time, so they can try to go beyond what their training data allows them to do “fine”. The key for generality is trying to learn after you’ve been trained, to try to solve something that you’ve not been prepared for.

    Even OpenAI’s O1 and O3 do that, and so does the one that Google has released recently. They are still using heavily an LLM, but they do more.

    I hope someone will finally mathematically prove that it’s impossible with current algorithms, so we can finally be done with this bullshiting.

    I’m not sure if it’s already proven or provable, but I think this is generally agreed. just deep learning will be able to fit a very complex curve/manifold/etc, but nothing more. It can’t go beyond what was trained on. But the approaches for generalizing all seem to do more than that, doing search, or program synthesis, or whatever.