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.
I mean sure, an imaginary LLM that exceeds the fundamental limitations of the technology could be convincing, but then that’s not an LLM. LLMs are statistical models, they don’t know anything. They use stats calculated from training data to guess what token should follow another. Hallucinations cannot be eliminated because that would require it to be capable of knowing things and then it would have to be able to error check itself rationally. In other words, it would have to be intelligent.