For the sake of argument let’s say an artificial neural net is approximately the same as the brain. It sounds like you agree with me that smaller programs are both more efficient and more effective than a larger neural net. So you should also agree with me that those who say the only path to AGI is LLM maximalism are misguided.
smaller programs are better than artificial or organic neural net for constrained problems like chess. But chess programs don't generalize to any other intelligence applications, like how organic neural nets do today.
> It sounds like you agree with me that smaller programs are both more efficient and more effective than a larger neural net.
At playing chess. (But also at doing sums and multiplications, yay!)
> So you should also agree with me that those who say the only path to AGI is LLM maximalism are misguided.
No. First of all, it's a claim you just made up. What we're talking about is people saying that LLMs are not the path to AGI- an entirely different claim.
Second, assuming there's any coherence to your argument, the fact that a small program can outclass an enormous NN is irrelevant to the question of whether the enormous NN is the right way to achieve AGI: we are "general intelligences" and we are defeated by the same chess program. Unless you mean that achieving the intelligence of the greatest geniuses that ever lived is still not enough.
