Comment by idiotsecant
1 year ago
I think LLMs are definitely on the path to AGI in the same way that the ball bearing was on the path to the internal combustion engine. I think its quite likely that LLMs will perform important functions within the system of an eventual AGI.
We're learning valuable lessons from all modern large-scale (post-AlexNet) NN architectures, transformers included, and NNs (but maybe trained differently) seem a viable approach to implement AGI, so we're making progress ... but maybe LLMs will be more inspiration than part of the (a) final solution.
OTOH, maybe pre-trained LLMs could be used as a hardcoded "reptilian brain" that provides some future AGI with some base capabilities (vs being sold as newborn that needs 20 years of parenting to be useful) that the real learning architecture can then override.
I would think they'd be more likely to form the language centre of a composite AGI brain. If you read through the known functions of the various areas involved in language[0] they seem to map quite well to the capabilities of transformer based LLMs especially the multi-modal ones.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_center
It's not obvious that an LLM - a pre-trained/frozen chunk of predictive statistics - would be amenable to being used as an integral part of an AGI that would necessarily be using a different incremental learning algorithm.
Would the transformer architecture be compatible with the needs of an incremental learning system? It's missing the top down feedback paths (finessed by SGD training) needed to implement prediction-failure driven learning that feature so heavily in our own brain.
This is why I could more see a potential role for a pre-trained LLM as a separate primitive subsystem to be overidden, or maybe (more likely) we'll just pre-expose an AGI brain to 20 years of sped-up life experience and not try to import an LLM to be any part of it!
3 replies →
This may be accurate. I wonder if there's enough energy in the world for this endeavour.
Of course!
1. We've barely scratched the surface of this solution space; the focus only recently started shifting from improving model capabilities to improving training costs. People are looking at more efficient architectures, and lots of money is starting to flow in that direction, so it's a safe bet things will get significantly more efficient.
2. Training is expensive, inference is cheap, copying is free. While inference costs add up with use, they're still less than costs of humans doing the equivalent work, so out of all things AI will impact, I wouldn't worry about energy use specifically.
Humans don't require immense amounts of energy to function. The reasons why LLMs do is because we are essentially using brute force as the methodology for making them smarter for the lack of better understanding of how this works. But this then gives us a lot of material to study to figure that part out for future iterations of the concept.
Are you so sure about that? How much energy went into training the self-assembling chemical model that is the human brain? I would venture to say literally astronomical amounts.
You have to compare apples to apples. It took literally the sum total of billions of years of sunlight energy to create humans.
Exploring solution spaces to find intelligence is expensive, no matter how you do it.
Humans normally need about 30 years of training before they’re competent.