That's mainly on "them", as the Deep Learning school have commenced in a smear campaign against every AI-technology that is not based on ANNs, for years now. Obviously to divert funding to their own projects. And it worked; it is near impossible to get funding outside of ANN/DL focussed projects. I deal with that on a daily basis.
Totally agree with that. However, there should be a scientific and/or technological explanation of that strategy being viable. Outside of that, it is just religion. ANNs, and their derivative technologies like Deep Learning and Transformers, have not shown any indication, scientific or technological, to be able to "emerge" from their initial training. People think that GPT is constantly learning, but it isn't. It is not how the technology provable works.
This also shows where things become hype: we see people saying things like "the next version is going to be so much better", while the simple question to that statement is: WHY? The mistakes that GPT4 makes were also in GPT3 and even in GPT2 before that. When looking forward from GPT2, it simply didn't get better. It is still making the same mistakes. You can only make these models larger, you can't make them different. And GPT2 -> GPT3 -> GPT4 has already proven that making them larger doesn't solve these problems. It is logical sense that even larger models will still not solve these problems.
That is obviously what he was implying, at least that they are on route to something equivalent, as he uses all kinds of similar wording in every interview he has done so far.
I'm not convinced of that because the mistakes that GPT makes are not solvable with an ANN-based model. And he knows that, for sure. These mistakes ARE a total failure.
It is the fundamental premise that laid under the acquisition of Deep Mind by Google. Demis Hassabis has made this clear in several of his presentations, and that it is indeed his point of view. And he is not alone in that stance. Yann Lecun has held that mantra as well for years, and only recently diverged from that standpoint.
I'm not saying that the positions are hype. But what's currently happening around it certainly is.
I don't agree with you on that, as it is my area of research (and dare I say, expertise). Again, there is quite a bit of understanding about what general intelligence is. You just won't find that understanding in the ANN/DL/LLM school of thought.
Exactly. And that is what is lacking in the ANN-focussed community. They still state that ANNs are the most "human-like" approach, while advances in neuroscience have shown this to be wildly untrue. The ANN school of thought has neglected other scientific areas, to the point that you can find research on this tunnel-vision behavior.