It was clear to any serious person from the get go that LLMs only ape intelligence and are a dead end as far as general intelligence is concerned. Trying to discredit this notion this late in the game is akin to wrestling with a pig in the mud. If they want their journalism to make a difference they should be asking why AI boosters like Altman and Amodei are getting away with doing what Neumann and Holmes did but on a much larger scale.
The title is false. The cited paper deals with connection between language and intelligence however a) it does not comment on current AI bubble and b) current AI research does not assume language is the same as intelligence. It’s an example of scientists saying something and journalists extrapolating from that to get a story out of it. Reminds me of On Human (and) Nature.
The title is not false. If you actually bothered to read the article, you’d see that the argument being made is that the AI tech companies are selling a vision to their investors that’s at odds with the research. The current LLM based approach to AI cannot achieve general intelligence.
Even the article admits that AI researchers are aware that LLMs are not sufficient. So the title is absolutely false. The article uses research which has very little to do with the subject to springboard into an opinion piece which itself observes that actually the premiss of the opinion is incorrect.
And once again, what the article is actually talking is how LLMs are being sold to investors. At this point, I get the impression that you simply lack basic reading comprehension to understand the article you’re commending on.
Maybe. Or maybe you lack basic critical thinking to be able to put the article in context. But since you’ve initiated the ad hominem part of the discussion, I don’t think there’s any point continuing this discussion, so we’ll never know.
I’ve literally been contextualizing the article throughout this whole discussion for you. At least we can agree that continuing this is pointless. Bye.
Um…yeah. About ten seconds of critical thinking also shows that language is not the same as intelligence.
First thing i thought of
But is the average finance bro capable of ten seconds of critical thinking?
Money throws logic out the window 10/10 times cant recommend.
