I’ve written something vague in another place in this thread which seemed a good enough argument. But I didn’t expect that someone is going to link a literal scientific publication in the same very direction. Thank you, sometimes arguing in the Web is not a waste of time.

EDIT: Have finished reading it. Started thinking it was the same argument, in the middle got confused, in the end realized that yes, it’s the same argument, but explained well by a smarter person. A very cool article, and fully understandable for a random Lemming at that.

Dismiss at your own peril is my mantra on this. I work primarily in machine vision and the things that people were writing on as impossible or “unique to humans” in the 90s and 2000s ended up falling rapidly, and that generation of opinion pieces are now safely stored in the round bin.

The same was true of agents for games like go and chess and dota. And now the same has been demonstrated to be coming true for languages.

And maybe that paper built in the right caveats about “human intelligence”. But that isn’t to say human intelligence can’t be surpassed by something distinctly inhuman.

The real issue is that previously there wasn’t a use case with enough viability to warrant the explosion of interest we’ve seen like with transformers.

But transformers are like, legit wild. It’s bigger than UNETs. It’s way bigger than ltsm.

So dismiss at your own peril.