"the government" is not one person with a concrete ideology, it is an amalgamation of hundreds of people who all want different things and are theoretically beholden to their voter base.
A school filled with wealthy families will always have solid readiness and test scores, just because the families can afford whatever help is needed. A quality school wouldn't just let underprivileged children slip through.
>Simple: I know that humans have intentionality and agency. They want things, they have goals both immediate and long term. Their replies are based not just on the context of their experiences and the conversation but their emotional and physical state, and the applicability of their reply to their goals.
This all seems orthogonal to reasoning, but also who is to say that somewhere in those billions of parameters there isn't something like a model of goals and emotional state? I mean, I seriously doubt it, but I also don't think I could evidence that.
the NRO is the craziest US government agency. iirc all their workers are contracted and all their expenses are highly classified. About the KH-11, trump accidentally tweeted an image from one of them (see https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/01/t...) and its resolution was an international incident. This technology was developed in the 70s. The NRO has sci-fi technology.
I am thinking that the latter might eventually emerge, probably as part of a bigger tool chain e.g. langchain. Something like java bytecode which is low level and portable, but optimized for the ways that LLMs (perhaps interfacing with other tools) work.
>If you time travel back 50 years ago and told them in the future that a computer could ace almost any exam given to a high school student, most people would consider that a form of AGI.
The problem is that these sorts of things were thought to require some sort of understanding of general intelligence, when in practice you get solve them pretty well with algorithms that clearly aren't intelligent and aren't made with an understanding of intelligence. Like, if you time travel back 100 years and told them that in the future a computer could beat any grandmaster at chess, they might consider that a form of AGI too. But we know with hindsight that it isn't true, that playing chess doesn't require intelligence, just chess prowess. That's not to say that GPT4 or whatever isn't a step towards intelligence, but it's ludicrous to say that they're a significant advancement towards that goal.
the words "based on" are doing a lot of work here. No, we don't know what sort of stuff it learns from its training data nor do we know what sorts of reasoning it does, and the link you sent doesn't disagree.
I can throw a ton of algorithms that no human alive can hope to decide whether they halt or not. Human minds aren't inherently good at solving halting problems and I see no reason to suggest that they can even decide whether all turing machines with number of states, say, below the number of particles in the observable universe, very much less all possible computers.
Moreover, are you sure that e.g. loving people in non-algorithmic? We can already make chatbots which pretty convincingly act as if they love people. Sure, they don't actually love anyone, they just generate text, but then, what would it mean for a system or even a human to "actually" love someone?