> LLMs are nothing close to AGI and not going to lead to it, they can’t distinguish right from wrong, they can’t count, they can’t reason, they generate plausible text from a vast databank of connected text.
Argument?
Are LLMs close to being able to significantly help AGI researchers?
Yeah, maybe you are right. But is doing math and reasoning about Turing machines a priori? If so, then it seems plausible to me that reasoning about a codebase (without running it) is also ‘a priori’.
If your project requires the solution of a tricky algorithmic issue, then is the AI system able to solve that part, or do you have to give it the solution?
> I don't use ChatGPT, but i've been using an agent with Claude Sonnet 4.
Are you using Sonnet 4.6?
> So this AI Agent... It is much faster at doing code when given specific instructions. But it keeps loosing context on architecture, and i cant really let it build complex things with interdependencies that build on each other.
I've only built small things (< 1000 lines) with the systems, so I might be missing this problem.
Is it better than you at building small self-contained things?
> And i get a bad feel when i then wonder how is this app doing what it does? because my agent cant explain it, and i would be stupid to believe what it hallucinated because it sounds really solid until you scratch the construction.
Do you ask it to generate test suites for the things that it builds?
> it would be also faster to build a catastrophic spaghetti code nightmare if not used with great care.
> Right, but that's explicitly not the body of government meant to represent people.
I haven't claimed that the Senate was intended to represent the people. I also haven't claimed that OP claimed that the Senate was intended to represent the people.
> So is he saying the Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 100 states, or is he saying the House is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people?
He didn't say either of those things. He said this "The Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people."
I think OP is arguing that because they literally said "The Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people and we’re going to continue to get absurd unrepresentative outcomes for as long as it remains a relevant body."
Argument?