155
The entire business model of AI companies is that it makes mistakes so you have to keep using it to fix the mistakes it creates (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 4 months ago (10 children)

If it worked they could be profitable already instead of continuing to burn billions of investment dollars.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (9 children)

    They're burning billions because they're trying to rush ahead of the competition in capabilities. No matter how good LLMs get, that is not their goal. They're trying to reach AGI and there are no second places in that race.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    Thinking that LLMs will ever become AGI is fucking hysterical, and that is what the shills keep saying is going to happen. They are trying to turn lead into gold using a stove and a skillet.

    No money they have dumped into LLMs is going to contribute to something that could achieve AGI. They are running the wrong race.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Mind quoting the part where I claimed LLMs will become AGI?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Altman and the other shills claim that.

    Are you an AI shill?

    If not, then I didn't say you claimed that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] -7 points 4 months ago

    Then I don't see how your response in any way relates to what I said.

    Whether you think they'll ever get there or not is completely irrelevant. That is still what they're after and the reason for the massive upfront investments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    AI and AGI are not synonymous terms. We've had AI since 1956. General intelligence means human-level intelligence. When an AI system can do any task as well as or better than humans can, it's by definition generally intelligent.

    We're not changing the definitions. People thought that chess is so hard that once an AI system can play chess it has to be as intelligent as humans. That just turned out to be a false assumption. A system can be superhuman at playing chess but that ability doesn't need to translate to any other field.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Sounds like changing definitions to me.

    But it's not. It's a hypothesis that was proven incorrect by running the experiment.

    That’s translatable to other fields

    I didn't say it doesn't ever translate to other fields. I said that it doesn't need to. That's the difference between narrow and general intelligence. You can be superhuman at X but have zero clue how to do Y. It's still intelligence but it's not general or "human level"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    I think they know AGI is far off, and are setting a more medium term goal. I think they are just trying to corner the new LLM market that might emerge. Even if the bubble pops and 3/4 go bust, they hope to be the one that survives and gets to be the quasi-monopoly in that market for the next decade.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

    Nobody "knows" that AGI is far off just like nobody knows that it's near either. That is not an established fact. Those are both just popular narratives in their respective camps. We could get there tomorrow or it could take usanother 400 years. Both are plausible outcomes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Sure just like we could discover the Greek gods exist tomorrow.

    The point is that there is no reason to plan towards AGI for those CEOs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (-2 replies)