Look, I don’t believe that an AGI is possible or atleast within the next few decade. But I was thinking about, if one came to be, how can we differentiate it from a Large Language Model (LLM) that has read every book ever written by humans?

Such an LLM would have the “knowledge” of almost every human emotions, morals, and can even infer from the past if the situations are slightly changed. Also such LLM would be backed by pretty powerful infrastructure, so hallucinations might be eliminated and can handle different context at a single time.

One might say, it also has to have emotions to be considered an AGI and that’s a valid one. But an LLM is capable of putting on a facade at-least in a conversation. So we might have to hard time reading if the emotions are genuine or just some texts churned out by some rules and algorithms.

In a pure TEXTUAL context, I feel it would be hard to tell them apart. What are your thoughts on this? BTW this is a shower-thought, so I might be wrong.

  • techpeakedin1991@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    It’s really easy to show this even with a known problem. Ask an LLM to play a game of chess, and then give it 1. h3 as a first move. They always screw up immediately, by making an illegal move. This happens because 1. h3 is hardly ever played, so it isn’t part of it’s model. In fact, it’ll usually play a move that ‘normally’ responds to h3, like Bh5 for example