We survey a current, heated debate in the artificial intelligence (AI) research community on whether large pretrained language models can be said to understand language—and the physical and social situations language encodes—in any humanlike sense. We describe arguments that have been made for and against such understanding and key questions for the broader sciences of intelligence that have arisen in light of these arguments. We contend that an extended science of intelligence can be developed that will provide insight into distinct modes of understanding, their strengths and limitations, and the challenge of integrating diverse forms of cognition.

Click on the article title to read more.

The term “artificial general intelligence” (AGI) has become ubiquitous in current discourse around AI. OpenAI states that its mission is “to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.” DeepMind’s company vision statement notes that “artificial general intelligence…has the potential to drive one of the greatest transformations in history.” AGI is mentioned prominently in the UK government’s National AI Strategy and in US government AI documents . Microsoft researchers recently claimed evidence of “sparks of AGI” in the large language model GPT-4, and current and former Google executives proclaimed that “AGI is already here.” The question of whether GPT-4 is an “AGI algorithm” is at the center of a lawsuit filed by Elon Musk against OpenAI.

In 1967, Marvin Minksy, a founder of the field of artificial intelligence (AI), made a bold prediction: “Within a generation…the problem of creating ‘artificial intelligence’ will be substantially solved.” Assuming that a generation is about 30 years, Minsky was clearly overoptimistic. But now, nearly two generations later, how close are we to the original goal of human-level (or greater) intelligence in machines?

Today’s AI systems sorely lack the essence of human intelligence: Understanding the situations we experience, being able to grasp their meaning. The lack of humanlike understanding in machines is underscored by recent studies demonstrating lack of robustness of state-of-the-art deep-learning systems. Deeper networks and larger datasets alone are not likely to unlock AI’s “barrier of meaning”; instead the field will need to embrace its original roots as an interdisciplinary science of intelligence.