Some people seems to not get this: LLMs do not need to be the ASI themselves

Reddit r/singularity News
ai llm asi superintelligence machine-learning future-tech

Summary

The article argues that LLMs do not need to become ASI themselves; they can research and develop new AI models that might not be LLMs, leading to ASI through narrow super-intelligence.

Some people are skeptics about ASI because "LLMs can't reach ASI". Let's make this clear. If any AI-LLM based system can research and develop another AI model because it has some narrow super-intelligence on that topic, then a new model they will create might not be an LLM anymore, it could be something completely new. We don't need to create that "completely new" model-architecture by ourselves for an ASI to arrive. A system more capable than us can do it, just like how it is more capable than us to solve some difficult math equations (narrow super-intelligence). So either you consider LLMs as capable of reaching ASI or not, it doesn't matter.
Original Article

Similar Articles

Can AGI be achieved with LLMs alone?

Reddit r/singularity

This post explores the debate among top AI figures regarding whether LLMs alone can achieve AGI or if additional breakthroughs like world models are required.

Choose what LLMs can and can’t do well

Reddit r/AI_Agents

The article highlights that LLMs excel at ambiguous judgment tasks but are mediocre for consistent computation, advocating for task specialization in multi-agent systems.

LLMs Aren't Inevitable

Hacker News Top

A blog post arguing that the claim 'AI is inevitable' is a thought-terminating cliché, exploring what inevitability means for technologies and why LLMs likely don't meet those criteria given contingent social and cultural structures.

LLMs and Self-Referentiality

Hacker News Top

The article discusses how self-referentiality, once thought essential for AI, was not explicitly required in building advanced LLMs like GPT 5.6 Pro, challenging earlier ideas from thinkers like Douglas Hofstadter.