pull down to refresh

Wow ok was not aware of that.
I thought a lot of their talk/hype was based upon the premise of achieving AGI.
Need to do some more study of this.

100 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 2h

That was until the promised almost-AGI (gpt-5) kinda was a doozy.

Those that are still working on "Super Intelligence" are now mostly outside of the usual suspects and not working on LLMs anymore, check for example LeCun (#1405916):

“I’m sure there’s a lot of people at Meta, including perhaps Alex, who would like me to not tell the world that LLMs basically are a dead end when it comes to superintelligence,” he says. “But I’m not gonna change my mind because some dude thinks I’m wrong. I’m not wrong. My integrity as a scientist cannot allow me to do this.
reply

Yes I remember reading that article but while LeCun is critical of the AGI LLM model he is not in the majority... because of his different viewpoint.

He is speaking out against the majority at places like Meta where AGI seems to be still the claimed objective.

reply

i said "for example". I'm sure you can read SN and find the articles that confirm what I say. Or ask GLM-5.

reply

Have never consciously used AI though aware it is creeping into a lot of content we see online whether we like it or not - tbh am highly skeptical of it.

But yes it is a fascinating topic and I do want to try and learn more about it.

I do follow it casually and the article you linked is the only one I have seen which challenged what I see as the dominant narrative of AGI being portrayed as the holy grail being sought by the Big US Tech giants in contrast to the more pragmatic/utilitarian approach the Chinese appear to be taking.

reply
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 1h

I think that the biggest thing is that it's useful for search engine replacement if you can be bothered to actually check the links it cites.

For coding it's getting good, but not as good as people say it is. It's mostly much more scalable due to parallelization being cheaper and easier to attain. I.e. if you run 19 agents in parallel with one human vs train 20 humans, the agents will always win on consistency. But the skills of the single human are infinitely more impactful in the agentic setting than the skills of all humans combined in the human team setting: there are no complementary skills in the former setting, no real synergy; just scale and cheap restarts.

reply