Rodney Brooks on GPT-4
No world model ?<p>A world model is so obvious papers like these are more confirmation than surprise<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2305.11169" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2305.11169</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2210.13382" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2210.13382</a><p>There a certain sentiment that AGI however you wish to define it won&#x27;t infact be a &quot;We&#x27;ll know it when we see it&quot; situation but rather a &quot;AGI will arrive long before consensus reaches its AGI&quot;. LLMs have made me believe this will 100% be the case, either way.<p>It&#x27;s one thing to argue over things we can&#x27;t evaluate even now but man the 100th &quot;They can&#x27;t reason!&quot; every week is pretty funny when you can basically take your pick of reasonong type - Algorithmic, Casual, Inference, Analogical and read a paper showing strong performance.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2212.09196" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2212.09196</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2305.00050" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2305.00050</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2204.02329" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2204.02329</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2211.09066" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2211.09066</a><p>People refuse to see even what is staring right at them.