logoalt Hacker News

rootusrootusyesterday at 10:09 PM1 replyview on HN

I think I was fairly clear, I said that I think it is hubris to think what we have created is anything even slightly like human intelligence. It talks very pretty (a lot of work has gone into this aspect in particular), and it does demonstrate the extent to which, as individuals, most of us do not have especially unique thoughts nor problems to solve. It exposes how quickly humans jump to anthropomorphizing pretty much anything.

Is it a handy tool? Yep! I use it every day. But it is laughable to think this is the path to AGI. The most common counterargument on HN is some variation of "but you can't prove that this isn't just like how a human thinks". A conspiracy theory at best, just reinforcing the fact that we know very little about how even simple non-human brains function.


Replies

lostmsuyesterday at 11:39 PM

You do you. I stick to the simplest reasonable definitions. From my perspective we are already in AGI, just the intelligence isn't quite on human level yet across the board.

I am yet to see anyone saying it's just like human, so it looks like you are mostly hallucinating that too.

You didn't address my point on GPT-2 vs 5.5. Your only relevant claim is that 5.5 talks very pretty vs 2 just pretty I assume. Well, you have to be blind to claim this is the main difference.