Progress in speech recognition has been slow and incremental, not fast and impressive. Hidden Markov Models did a decent job in the 90s. Now we have more data and more computing power.

In the past three years we have dropped error rates by a factor of 3, I don’t really think that claim holds water.

We have seen huge progress in a number of other fields as well. Anecdotally, voice recognition has definitely gotten way better as well.

Both voice recognition had first working research machines in the 1950s. Of course present models are way better than these, but fundamentally these are the same as those in the '50s, "just" with tremendously better hardware and algorithms. But there is zero intelligence in these, the models have no internal concept of language or the world around them.

This will certainly produce many great specific solutions for specific problems, but generic problems like driving a car are most probably not solvable without an internal world model.

I'm one of the naysayers and have a background in educational science, I'm constantly baffled why AI research seemingly never looks at theories of human learning (though it may very well be that I haven't looked closely enough!). What essentially all AI approaches do is modelling associative learning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning#Associative_learning), but employing more and more processing power for training. This is akin to having a fruit fly brain and copy-pasting that over and over again, in the hope somehow a higher order will organize from that by itself. But most things humans reason about are not learned this way, but rather by infering meaning from things and situations, i.e. one learns how a steering wheel works not through hundreds and hundreds of trial and error cases, but through single Aha! moments in which ad-hoc generated mental models (concepts) are validated in the environment. And GPT-3 has no knowledge organized in a hierarchical system of concepts, just as ELIZA didn't have one.

There are tons of research projects that do exactly what you're talking about, initializing an agent with zero knowledge in an environment which just provide rules of discovery and reward. The agent then takes actions in that space and learns from its own experiences. It's just that it is hard to compare with humans, who have had the benefit of evolution over millions of years. A basic example is that of AlphaGo Zero[1], which learns to play a top level game by being given enough time and just the rules of the game. This is similar to how a child learns to walk, it is just that we only have the capability to model toy situations (a board game in this instance) right now, and access to harder instances (movement in the real world) will slowly come about. There are cases of robots being programmed to poke / move / pick objects to try and learn about their shapes[2], in case you are interested in another such example.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_Zero [2] - https://bair.berkeley.edu/blog/2019/03/21/tactile/

AlphaGo Zero definitely falls in the same category as GPT-3 - yes, this is unsupervised learning, but it still is fundamentally the same approach, exactly because of the way discovery and reward work on the model.

This isn't how a child learns to walk at all: A child a priori has the concept of walking, the concept of self, the concept of movement in space, the concept of willing to walk etc. - it just doesn't have the motoric control. The small part of training motoric control through repeated trial and error is indeed similar to what unsupervised learning models, but the important part is missing.

>In the past three years we have dropped error rates by a factor of 3

What are you referring to here?