Actually, I think you're right and they did mention it. I guess I wish they would have emphasized that aspect more than the 'sparks of general intelligence'. It's mostly a solid paper for what it is. They admit they don't know what the training data looks like. I just wish they would have left that paragraph about the sparks out of it.

I hadn't seen the OpenAI paper before, but it states it's about the coming decades; and that makes the Twitter thread more interesting because one of the authors is putting a hard date on 2025 for some of those innovations.

It's pretty easy to find flaws in the Microsoft Research paper. It's funny that they hype up its performance on coding interviews, but don't mention that it falls down on data that it hasn't been trained on explicitly: https://twitter.com/cHHillee/status/1635790330854526981

Admittedly, I'm probably more skeptical than most.

GPT4 is certainly an incremental step over 3,2 and 1, a lot of that was predictable. It's good to see that it hallucinates a lot less than it used to.

I see lots of psychology and business types talking about how we are almost at AGI, but where are the voices of the people actually working on this stuff? LeCun? Hinton? Even Carmack?

I do agree that it's getting closer to where it will replace some jobs. That part isn't hype.