Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that means any AI that just talks to you can't be AI by definition. No matter how decisively the AI passes the Turing test, it doesn't matter. It could converse with the top expert in any field as an equal, solve any problem you ask it to solve in math or physics, write stunningly original philosophy papers, or gather evidence from a variety of sources, evaluate them, and reach defensible conclusions. It's all ju…
I don't mean that the primary (or only) way that it interacts with a human can't be just text. Right now, the only way it interacts with anything is by generating a stream of tokens. To make any API calls, to use any tool, to make any query for knowledge, it is predicting tokens in the same way as it does when a human asks it a question. There may need to be other subsystems that the LLM subsystem interfaces with to…
Models can be trained to generate tokens with many different meanings, including visual, auditory, textual, and locomotive. Those alone seem sufficient to emulate a human to me.
It would certainly be cool to integrate some subsystems like a symbolic reasoner or calculator or something, but the bitter lesson tells us that we'd be better off just waiting for advancements in computing power.