> Philosophically, you can start ad hoc-ing functionalities on top of LLMs and expect major progress. Sure, you can make them better, but you will never get to the state where AI is massively useful.
Evolution created various neural structures in biological brains (visual cortex, medulla, thalamus, etc) rather ad-hoc, and those resulted in "massively useful" systems. Why should AI be different?
I mean, we could definitely run architectures through simulated evolution with genetic algorithms, but then you arrive at the same problem as humans do, which is that you end up with a statistically best solution for given conditions. Sure, that could be a form of AI but there is likely a better (and likely faster) way to build an AI that isn't fundamentally statistical in nature and is adaptable to any and all problems.
Evolution created various neural structures in biological brains (visual cortex, medulla, thalamus, etc) rather ad-hoc, and those resulted in "massively useful" systems. Why should AI be different?