Why is your criteria for "on the path towards AGI" so absolutist? For it to be on the path towards AGI and not simply AGI it has to be deficient in some way. Why does the current failure modes tell you its on the wrong path? Yes, it has some interesting failure modes. The failure mode you mention is in fact very similar to human failure modes. We very much are prone to substituting the expected pattern when presented with a 99% match to a pattern previously seen. They also have a lot of inhuman failure modes as well. But so what, they aren't human. Their training regimes are very dissimilar to ours and so we should expect some alien failure modes owing to this. This doesn't strike me as good reason to think they're not on the path towards AGI.

Yes, LLMs aren't very good at reasoning and have weird failure modes. But why is this evidence that its on the wrong path, and not that it just needs more development that builds on prior successes?

Well the problem with that approach is that LLMs are still both incredibly dumb and small, at least compared to the what, 700T params of a human brain? Can't compare the two directly, especially when one has a massive recall advantage that skews the perception of that. But there is still some inteligence under there that's not just memorization. Not much, but some.

So if you present a novel problem it would need to be extremely simple, not something that you couldn't solve when drunk and half awake. Completely novel, but extremely simple. I think that's testable.

It’s not fair to ask me to judge them based on their size. I’m judging them based on the claims of their vendors.

Anyway the novel problems I’m talking about are extremely simple. Basically they’re variations on the “farmer, 3 animals, and a rowboat” problem. People keep finding trivial modifications to the problem that fool the LLMs but wouldn’t fool a child. Then the vendors come along and patch the model to deal with them. This is what I mean by whack-a-mole.

Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment tells us that enough games of whack-a-mole could eventually get us to a pretty good facsimile of reasoning without ever achieving the genuine article.

Well that's true and has been pretty glaring, but they've needed to do that in cases where models seem to fail to grasp the some concept across the board and not in cases where they don't.

Like, every time an LLM gets something right we assume they've seen it somewhere in the training data, and every time they fail we presume they haven't. But that may not always be the case, it's just extremely hard to prove it one way or the other unless you search the entire dataset. Ironically the larger the dataset, the more likely the model is generalizing while also making it harder to prove if it's really so.

To give a human example, in a school setting you have teachers tasked with figuring out that exact thing for students. Sometimes people will read the question wrong with full understanding and fail, while other times they won't know anything and make it through with a lucky guess. If LLMs (and their vendors) have learned anything it's that confidently bullshitting gets you very far which makes it even harder to tell in cases where they aren't. Somehow it's also become ubiquitous to tune models to never even say "I don't know" because it boosts benchmark scores slightly.