[GodelNumbering]

Indeed. One could argue that the LLMs will keep on improving and they would be correct. But they would not improve in ways that make them a good independent agent safe for real world. Richard Sutton got a lot of disagreeing comments when he said on Dwarkesh Patel podcast that LLMs are not bitter-lesson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_lesson) pilled. I believe he is right. His argument being, any technique that relies on human generated data is bound to have limitations and issues that get harder and harder to maintain/scale over time (as opposed to bitter lesson pilled approaches that learn truly first hand from feedback)

[_heimdall]

I disagree with Sutton that a main issue is using human generated data. We humans are trained on that and we don't run into such issues.

I expect the problem is more structural to how the LLMs, and other ML approaches, actually work. Being disembodied algorithms trying to break all knowledge down to a complex web of probabilities, and assuming that anything predicting based only on those quantified data, seems hugely limiting and at odds with how human intelligence seems to work.

[GodelNumbering]

Sutton actually argues that we do not train on data, we train on experiences. We try things and see what works when/where and formulate views based on that. But I agree with your later point about training such a way is hugely limiting, a limit not faced by humans

[_heimdall]

Someone arguing that LLMs will keep improving may be putting too much weight behind expecting a trend to continue, but that wouldn't make them a gullible sucker.

I'd argue that LLMs have gotten noticeably better at certain tasks every 6-12 months for the last few years. The idea that we are at the exact point where that trend stops and they get no better seems harder to believe.