I find it difficult to understand people who are wildly skeptical about LLMs leading to AGI (assuming we can even agree on what that means). Consider:

- They can already reason better than many humans and are still improving all the time

- Harnesses are improving all the time

- We're already exploring things like long term memory, long term goals, and other things that humans have which LLMs traditionally lack

- An AI agent can read and reason about every piece of AI research ever published, including looking for insights that humans may have missed. A team of humans could never do this even if they dedicated their whole lives to it.

- They can design and execute experiments on a mass scale to determine what does and doesn't work

- Large AI labs have more than sufficient resources and motivation to throw at the problem, and are in fact doing this.

Did I even mention AGI? All I’m saying is that we’re hitting a plateau with how good models are while harnesses are untapped potential. And with Pi, you can swap models like electricity companies. Yes for now, the electricity is better with some companies but this will stabilize.

And no I came up with the metaphor all on my own, send me the chat of you getting the LLM to come up with it. Why not argue based on merit instead of strawman and ad hominem attacks?

> Sadly, many people have bought into the cult that LLMs will lead to AGI

You can never tell if the goomba opinion of the forum will agree we have reached AGI (seen that happen on a few threads lately) or will readily call that a ludicrous proposition.