Arriving at a generally accepted scientific definition of AGI might be difficult, but a more achievable goal might be to arrive at a scientific way to determine something is not AGI. And while I'm not an expert in the field, I would certainly think a strong contender for relevant criteria would be an inability to process information in a way other than the one a system was explicitly programmed to, even if the new way of processing information was very related to the pre-existing method. Most humans playing Wordle for the first time probably weren't used to thinking about words that way either, but they were able to adapt because they actually understand how letters and words work.
I'm sure one could train an LLM to be awesome at Wordle, but from an AGI perspective the fact that you'd have to do so proves it's not a path to AGI. The Wordle dominating LLM would presumably be perplexed by the next clever word game until trained on thinking about information that way, while a human doesn't need to absorb billions of examples to figure it out.
I was originally pretty bullish on LLMs, but now I'm equally convinced that while they probably have some interesting applications, they're a dead-end from a legitimate AGI perspective.
An LLM doesn't even see individual letters at all, because they get encoded into tokens before they are passed as input to the model. It doesn't make much sense to require reasoning with things that aren't even in the input as a requisite for intelligence.
That would be like an alien race that could see in an extra dimension, or see the non-visible light spectrum, presenting us with problems that we cannot even see and saying that we don't have AGI when we fail to solve them.
I have just tried and it indeed does get it right quite often, but if the word is rare (or made up) and the position is not one of the first, it often fails. And GPT-4 too.
I suppose if it can sort of do it is because of indirect deductions from training data.
I.e. maybe things like "the third letter of the word dog is d", or "the word d is composed of the letters d, o, g" are in the training data; and from there it can answer questions not only about "dog", but probably about words that have "dog" as their first subtoken.
Actually it's quite impressive that it can sort of do it taking into account that, as I mention, characters are just outright not in the input. It's ironic that people often use these things as an example of how "dumb" the system is when it's actually amazing that it can sometimes work around that limitation.
...because it knows that the next token in the sequence "the 5th letter in the word _illusion_ is" happens to be "s". Not because it decomposed the word into letters.
"they're a dead-end from a legitimate AGI perspective"
Or another piece of the puzzle to achieve it. It might not be one true path, but a clever combination of existing working pieces where (different) LLMs are one or some of those pieces.
I believe there is also not only one way of thinking in the human brain, but my thought processes happen on different levels and maybe based on different mechanism. But as far as I know, we lack details.
I'm sure one could train an LLM to be awesome at Wordle, but from an AGI perspective the fact that you'd have to do so proves it's not a path to AGI. The Wordle dominating LLM would presumably be perplexed by the next clever word game until trained on thinking about information that way, while a human doesn't need to absorb billions of examples to figure it out.
I was originally pretty bullish on LLMs, but now I'm equally convinced that while they probably have some interesting applications, they're a dead-end from a legitimate AGI perspective.