Generative AI vs. AGI: The Cognitive Strengths and Weaknesses of Modern LLMs

AI-generated keywords: LLMs AGI Cognitive Strengths AI Systems Architectural Limitations

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • The paper examines interactive Language Models (LLMs) as cognitive systems
  • Focuses on LLMs developed around mid-2023 such as ChatGPT, GPT-4, Bard, and Llama
  • Reviews the cognitive strengths exhibited by these LLMs
  • Highlights significant differences between the cognitive capabilities of LLMs and humans
  • Attributes practical weaknesses in LLMs to architectural limitations
  • Argues against relying solely on incremental improvements in LLMs for achieving human-level AGI
  • Acknowledges that studying and experimenting with LLMs can provide valuable insights into understanding human-level AGI
  • Suggests that LLMs cannot achieve human-level AGI single-handedly but may play significant roles within AGI architectures alongside other ideas
  • Discusses social and ethical implications of LLMs, including addressing issues like misinformation and potential economic disruptions
  • Emphasizes the need for alternative approaches beyond incremental improvement to advance towards human-level AGI effectively.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Ben Goertzel

Abstract: A moderately detailed consideration of interactive LLMs as cognitive systems is given, focusing on LLMs circa mid-2023 such as ChatGPT, GPT-4, Bard, Llama, etc.. Cognitive strengths of these systems are reviewed, and then careful attention is paid to the substantial differences between the sort of cognitive system these LLMs are, and the sort of cognitive systems human beings are. It is found that many of the practical weaknesses of these AI systems can be tied specifically to lacks in the basic cognitive architectures according to which these systems are built. It is argued that incremental improvement of such LLMs is not a viable approach to working toward human-level AGI, in practical terms given realizable amounts of compute resources. This does not imply there is nothing to learn about human-level AGI from studying and experimenting with LLMs, nor that LLMs cannot form significant parts of human-level AGI architectures that also incorporate other ideas. Social and ethical matters regarding LLMs are very briefly touched from this perspective, which implies that while care should be taken regarding misinformation and other issues, and economic upheavals will need their own social remedies based on their unpredictable course as with any powerfully impactful technology, overall the sort of policy needed as regards modern LLMs is quite different than would be the case if a more credible approximation to human-level AGI were at hand.

Submitted to arXiv on 19 Sep. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2309.10371v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

In the paper "Generative AI vs. AGI: The Cognitive Strengths and Weaknesses of Modern LLMs," author Ben Goertzel provides a detailed examination of interactive Language Models (LLMs) as cognitive systems, with a specific focus on those developed around mid-2023 such as ChatGPT, GPT-4, Bard and Llama. The paper begins by reviewing the cognitive strengths exhibited by these systems. However, it also highlights significant differences between the cognitive capabilities of LLMs and those of human beings. By analyzing the basic cognitive architectures upon which these AI systems are built, it becomes evident that many practical weaknesses in LLMs can be attributed to these architectural limitations. The paper argues against relying solely on incremental improvements in LLMs as a viable path towards achieving human-level Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Given the constraints imposed by available computational resources, it is deemed impractical to expect substantial progress solely through this approach. Nonetheless, the author acknowledges that studying and experimenting with LLMs can still provide valuable insights into understanding human-level AGI. Additionally, they suggest that while LLMs may play significant roles within AGI architectures alongside other ideas, they cannot single-handedly achieve human-level AGI. The social and ethical implications of LLMs are also discussed from this perspective. While caution should be exercised to address issues like misinformation and potential economic disruptions resulting from powerful technologies like LLMs, the required policies for modern LLMs differ significantly from those that would be necessary if a more credible approximation of human-level AGI were attainable in the near future. Overall, Goertzel's paper offers an expanded understanding of interactive LLMs as cognitive systems by examining their strengths and weaknesses compared to human cognition. It emphasizes the need for alternative approaches beyond incremental improvement in order to advance towards human-level AGI effectively.
Created on 21 Sep. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.