alt Hacker News> LLMs are a dead end in achieving "intelligence"
There is no evidence to indicate this is the case. To the contrary, all evidence we have points to these models, over time, being able to perform a wider range of tasks at a higher rate of success. Whether it's GPQA, ARC-AGI or tool usage.
> they are delegating to other approaches > Faking intelligence is not intelligence. It's just text generation.
It seems like you know something about what intelligence actually is that you're not sharing. If it walks, talks and quacks like a duck, I have to assume it's a duck[1]. Though, maybe it quacks a bit weird.
> There is no evidence to indicate this is the case
Burden of proof is on those trying to convince us to buy into the idea of LLMs as being "intelligence".
There is no evidence of the Flying Spaghetti monster or Zeus or God not existing either, but we don't take seriously the people who claim they do exist (and there isn't proof because these concepts are made up).
Why should we take seriously the tolks claiming LLMs are intelligence without proof (there can't be proof, of course, because LLMs are not intelligence)?