The quiet revolution is happening in tool use and multimodal capabilities. Moderate incremental improvements on general intelligence, but dramatic improvements on multi-step tool use and ability to interact with the world (vs 1 year ago), will eventually feed back into general intelligence.
1) Build a directory of X (a gazillion) amount of tools (just functions) that models can invoke with standard pipeline behavior (parallel, recursion, conditions etc)
2) Solve the "too many tools to select from" problem (a search problem), adjacently really understand the intent (linguistics/ToM) of the user or agents request
3) Someone to pay for everything
4) ???
The future is already here in my opinion, the LLM's are good-enough™, it's just the ecosystem needs to catch up. Companies like Zapier or whatever, taken to their logical extreme, connecting any software to any thing (not just sass products), combined with an LLM will be able to do almost anything.
Even better basic tool composition around language will make it's simple replies better too.
Completely agree. General intelligence is a building block. By chaining things together you can achieve meta programming. The trick isn't to create one perfect block but to build a variety of blocks and make one of those blocks a block-builder.
I think we have reached a user schism in terms of benefits going forward.
I am completely floored by GPT-5. I only tried it a half hour ago and have a whole new data analysis pipeline. I thought it must be hallucinating badly at first but all the papers it referenced are real and I had just never heard of these concepts.
This is for an area that has 200 papers on arxiv and I have read all of them so thought I knew this area well.
I don't see how the average person benefits much going forward though. They simply don't have questions to ask in order to have the model display its intelligence.
What do you think are the chances that they used data collected from users for the past couple of years and are propping up performance in those use cases instead of the promised generality?
Can you please make your substantive points thoughtfully? Thoughtful criticism is welcome but snarky putdowns and onliners, etc., degrade the discussion for everyone.
You've posted substantive comments in other threads, so this should be easy to fix.
