> Artificial intelligence? We don't know enough about "intelligence".
The problem I have with this objection is that it, like many discussions, conflates LLMs (glorified predictive text) and other technologies currently being referred to as AI, with AGI.
Most of these technologies should still be called machine learning as they aren't really doing anything intelligent in the sense of general intelligence. As you say yourself: they don't know anything. And by inference, they aren't reasoning about anything.
Boilerplate code for common problems, and some not so common ones, which is what LLMs are getting pretty OK at and might in the coming years be very good at, is a definable problem that we understand quite well. And much as we like to think of ourselves as "computer scientists", the vast majority of what we do boils down to boilerplate code using common primitives, that are remarkably similar across many problem domains that might on first look appear to be quite different, because many of the same primitives and compound structures are used. The bits that require actual intelligence are often quite small (this is how I survive as a dev!), or are away from the development coalface (for instance: discovering and defining the problems before we can solve them, or describing the problem & solution such that someone or an "AI" can do the legwork).
> we need other big advancements in the field, which may or may not come.
I'm waiting for an LLM being guided to create a better LLM, and eventually down that chain a real AGI popping into existence, much like the infinite improbability drive being created by clever use of a late version finite improbability generator. This is (hopefully) many years (in fact I'm hoping for at least a couple of decades so I can be safely retired or nearly there!) from happening, but it feels like such things are just over the next deep valley of disillusionment.
The problem I have with this objection is that it, like many discussions, conflates LLMs (glorified predictive text) and other technologies currently being referred to as AI, with AGI.
Most of these technologies should still be called machine learning as they aren't really doing anything intelligent in the sense of general intelligence. As you say yourself: they don't know anything. And by inference, they aren't reasoning about anything.
Boilerplate code for common problems, and some not so common ones, which is what LLMs are getting pretty OK at and might in the coming years be very good at, is a definable problem that we understand quite well. And much as we like to think of ourselves as "computer scientists", the vast majority of what we do boils down to boilerplate code using common primitives, that are remarkably similar across many problem domains that might on first look appear to be quite different, because many of the same primitives and compound structures are used. The bits that require actual intelligence are often quite small (this is how I survive as a dev!), or are away from the development coalface (for instance: discovering and defining the problems before we can solve them, or describing the problem & solution such that someone or an "AI" can do the legwork).
> we need other big advancements in the field, which may or may not come.
I'm waiting for an LLM being guided to create a better LLM, and eventually down that chain a real AGI popping into existence, much like the infinite improbability drive being created by clever use of a late version finite improbability generator. This is (hopefully) many years (in fact I'm hoping for at least a couple of decades so I can be safely retired or nearly there!) from happening, but it feels like such things are just over the next deep valley of disillusionment.