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.
Uh, simple.
Clear your chat history, and see if it remembers anything.
LLMs are, by current defitions, static. They’re like clones you take out of cryostasis every time you hit enter; nothing you say has an impact on them. Meanwhile, the ‘memory’ and thinking of a true AGI are not seperable; it has a state that changes with time, and everything it experiences impacts its output.
…There are a ton of other differences. Transformers models trained with glorified linear regression are about a million miles away from AGI, but this one thing is an easy one to test right now. It’d work as an LLM vs human test too.