Some people seems to not get this: LLMs do not need to be the ASI themselves

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I’ve been thinking about the current AGI discussions, especially the debate between scaling language models and building embodied systems.</p>

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>There seems to be a lot of debate over whether LLMs alone can give us AGI. Dario Amodei seems to think LLMs are all we need whilst others like

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I'm seeing some people desperately claiming what we have now is agi. If AI cannot do RSI or self improve without human supervision and

<table> <tr><td> <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1sxffva/llms_are_a_dead_end/"> <img alt="LLMs are a Dead End"

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>The popular way of describing the purpose behind LLMs and the AI revolution is to imagine it as an abstraction layer. we have come from shifting

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I’ve been saying this for quite some time now and this paper that came out recently really puts it clearly</p> <p><a

<table> <tr><td> <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1wdde0p/llms_cant_do_frontier_science_because_they_cant/"> <img alt="LLMs can't do frontier science because they

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I know it’s still at least somewhat we are starting to see evidence of LLM starting to generalise all domains </p> <p>Both of these people were