[dontlikeyoueith]

> Still the fact that LLMs can do well in things like the maths olympiad have me thinking there must be some way to tweak this to be more brain like

That's because you, as you admit in the next sentence, have almost no understanding of how they work.

Your reasoning is on the same level as someone in the 1950s thinking ubiquitous flying cars are just a few years away. Or fusion power, for that matter.

In your defense, that seems to be about the average level of engagement with this technology, even on this website.

[tim333]

Maybe but the flying cars and fusion ran into fundamental barriers of the physics being hard. With human level intelligence though we have evidence it's possible from our brains which seem to use less compute than the LLMs going by power usage so I don't see a fundamental barrier to it just needing some different code.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

You could say there is no fundamental barrier to humans doing anything that is allowed by the laws of Physics, but that is not a very useful statement, and doesn't indicate how long it may take.

Since nobody has yet figured out how to build an artificial brain, having that as a proof it's possible doesn't much help. It will be decades or more before we figure out how the brain works and are able to copy that, although no doubt people will attempt to build animal intelligence before fully knowing how nature did it.

Saying that AGI "just needs some different code" than an LLM is like saying that building an interstellar spaceship "just needs some different parts than a wheelbarrow". Both are true, and both are useless statements offering zero insight into the timeline involved.

[dontlikeyoueith]

> I don't see a fundamental barrier to it

Neither did the people expecting fusion power and flying cars to come quickly.

We have just as much evidence that fusion power is possible as we do that human level intelligence is possible. Same with small vehicle flight for that matter.

None of that makes any of these things feasible.