alt Hacker News> because it is actually a statistical machine with context limit.
So are humans.
Machines have surpassed humans by magnitudes in many capabilities already (how many billion multiplications can you do per second?)
And I argue that current LLMs have surpassed many of my capabilities already.
For example GPT/Opus can understand and document some ancient legacy project I never saw before in minutes. I would take a week+ to do the same and my report would probably have more mistakes and oversights than the one generated by the LLM.
Replies
We are not pre-trained using the summary of all human knowledge over all of history. Yet we make certain decisions with much more ease.
We are much more limited, but we fundamentally work differently. Hence adding more parameter like certain companies are doing isn't necessarily going to help. We need to rethink how LLM work, or how it work in tandem with something that's completely different.
I think it's doable, I just don't believe it's LLM, and I don't think anyone now knows what it is.
>Machines have surpassed humans by magnitudes in many capabilities already (how many billion multiplications can you do per second?)
Do you have any idea how many calculations it takes for a human to put a ball through a hoop while running across a court?
It could be millions or billions in a second. Manifesting consciousness, coordinating body movements, and everything else all at the same time takes calculations.
You may not be aware that your brain is doing multiplication, or any other kinds of math, constantly, but it is.
> So are humans.
AI advocates are _way_ too confident about the nature human cognition. Questions that have been debated by philosophers and cognitive scientists for decades are now "obvious" according to you people, though you never provide any argument to support your statements.