You mention primate level vision, that does seem like a good argument to me because it’s hard to argue that we don’t have good vision these days. But I’d like to see the math worked out. I think you should write a whole post (doesn’t need to be wrong) on just this point, because if you are right here I think it’s pretty strong evidence for shorter timelines & will be convincing to many people.
I’ve updated the article to include a concise summary of a subset of the evidence for parity between modern vision ANNs and primate visual cortex, and then modern LLMs and linguistic cortex. I’ll probably also summarize the discussion of Cat vs VPT, but I do think that VPT > Cat, in terms of actual AGI-relevant skills, even though the Cat brain would still be a better arch for AGI. We haven’t really tried as hard at the sim Cat task (unless you count driverless cars, but I’d guess those may require raven-like intelligence, and robotics lags due to much harder inference performance constraints) . That’s all very compatible with the general thesis that we get hardware parity first, then software catches up a bit later. (At this point I would not be surprised if we have AGI before driverless cars are common)
I’ve updated the article to include a concise summary of a subset of the evidence for parity between modern vision ANNs and primate visual cortex, and then modern LLMs and linguistic cortex. I’ll probably also summarize the discussion of Cat vs VPT, but I do think that VPT > Cat, in terms of actual AGI-relevant skills, even though the Cat brain would still be a better arch for AGI. We haven’t really tried as hard at the sim Cat task (unless you count driverless cars, but I’d guess those may require raven-like intelligence, and robotics lags due to much harder inference performance constraints) . That’s all very compatible with the general thesis that we get hardware parity first, then software catches up a bit later. (At this point I would not be surprised if we have AGI before driverless cars are common)