alt Hacker News> I don't understand this view. How I see it the fundamental bottleneck to AGI is continual learning and backpropagation. Models today are static, and human brains don't learn or adapt themselves with anything close to backpropagation.
Even with continuous backpropagation and "learning", enriching the training data, so called online-learning, the limitations will not disappear. The LLMs will not be able to conclude things about the world based on fact and deduction. They only consider what is likely from their training data. They will not foresee/anticipate events, that are unlikely or non-existent in their training data, but are bound to happen due to real world circumstances. They are not intelligent in that way.
Whether humans always apply that much effort to conclude these things is another question. The point is, that humans fundamentally are capable of doing that, while LLMs are structurally not.
The problems are structural/architectural. I think it will take another 2-3 major leaps in architectures, before these AI models reach human level general intelligence, if they ever reach it. So far they can "merely" often "fake it" when things are statistically common in their training data.
Replies
Humans are notoriously bad at formal logic. The Wason selection task is the classic example: most people fail a simple conditional reasoning problem unless it’s dressed up in familiar social context, like catching cheaters. That looks a lot more like pattern matching than rule application.
Kahneman’s whole framework points the same direction. Most of what people call “reasoning” is fast, associative, pattern-based. The slow, deliberate, step-by-step stuff is effortful and error-prone, and people avoid it when they can. And even when they do engage it, they’re often confabulating a logical-sounding justification for a conclusion they already reached by other means.
So maybe the honest answer is: the gap between what LLMs do and what most humans do most of the time might be smaller than people assume. The story that humans have access to some pure deductive engine and LLMs are just faking it with statistics might be flattering to humans more than it’s accurate.
Where I’d still flag a possible difference is something like adaptability. A person can learn a totally new formal system and start applying its rules, even if clumsily. Whether LLMs can genuinely do that outside their training distribution or just interpolate convincingly is still an open question. But then again, how often do humans actually reason outside their own “training distribution”? Most human insight happens within well-practiced domains.
I think people MOSTLY foresee and anticipate events in OUR training data, which mostly comprises information collected by our senses.
Our training data is a lot more diverse than an LLMs. We also leverage our senses as a carrier for communicating abstract ideas using audio and visual channels that may or may not be grounded in reality. We have TV shows, video games, programming languages and all sorts of rich and interesting things we can engage with that do not reflect our fundamental reality.
Like LLMs, we can hallucinate while we sleep or we can delude ourselves with untethered ideas, but UNLIKE LLMs, we can steer our own learning corpus. We can train ourselves with our own untethered “hallucinations” or we can render them in art and share them with others so they can include it in their training corpus.
Our hallucinations are often just erroneous models of the world. When we render it into something that has aesthetic appeal, we might call it art.
If the hallucination helps us understand some aspect of something, we call it a conjecture or hypothesis.
We live in a rich world filled with rich training data. We don’t magically anticipate events not in our training data, but we’re also not void of creativity (“hallucinations”) either.
Most of us are stochastic parrots most of the time. We’ve only gotten this far because there are so many of us and we’ve been on this earth for many generations.
Most of us are dazzled and instinctively driven to mimic the ideas that a small minority of people “hallucinate”.
There is no shame in mimicking or being a stochastic parrot. These are critical features that helped our ancestors survive.
> They will not foresee/anticipate events, that are unlikely or non-existent in their training data, but are bound to happen due to real world circumstances. They are not intelligent in that way.
Can you be a bit more specific at all bounds? Maybe via an example?
I'm sure that if a car appeared from nowhere in the middle of your living room, you would not be prepared at all.
So my question is: when is there enough training data that you can handle 99.99% of the world ?
> Even with continuous backpropagation and "learning"
That's what I said. Backpropagation cannot be enough; that's not how neurons work in the slightest. When you put biological neurons in a Pong environment they learn to play not through some kind of loss or reward function; they self-organize to avoid unpredictable stimulation. As far as I know, no architecture learns in such an unsupervised way.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089662732...