←back to thread

204 points tdchaitanya | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.329s | source
Show context
andrewflnr ◴[] No.45094933[source]
Is this really the frontier of LLM research? I guess we really aren't getting AGI any time soon, then. It makes me a little less worried about the future, honestly.

Edit: I never actually expected AGI from LLMs. That was snark. I just think it's notable that the fundamental gains in LLM performance seem to have dried up.

replies(7): >>45094979 #>>45094995 #>>45095059 #>>45095198 #>>45095374 #>>45095383 #>>45095463 #
kenjackson ◴[] No.45094995[source]
First, I don't think we will ever get to AGI. Not because we won't see huge advances still, but AGI is a moving ambiguous target that we won't get consensus on.

But why does this paper impact your thinking on it? It is about budget and recognizing that different LLMs have different cost structures. It's not really an attempt to improve LLM performance measured absolutely.

replies(3): >>45095489 #>>45096115 #>>45099679 #
_heimdall ◴[] No.45095489[source]
So you don't expect AGI to be possible ever? Or is your concern mainly with the wildly different definitions people use for it and that we'll continue moving goal posts rather than agree we got there?
replies(1): >>45095729 #
nutjob2 ◴[] No.45095729[source]
There's no concrete evidence AGI is possible mostly because it has no concrete definition.

It's mostly hand waving, hype and credulity, and unproven claims of scalability right now.

You can't move the goal posts because they don't exist.

replies(3): >>45096070 #>>45097847 #>>45101489 #
1. _heimdall ◴[] No.45097847[source]
Got it, and yeah I agree with you there. I've been frustrated by a different view of it though, many people seem to have a definition and they are often wildly different.