How do you define intelligence? If LLMs are not intelligent NO other animal could ever be considered intelligent and many humans in the lower percentiles too. And that percentile is only going up.
Intelligence can be defined as sentience or sapience. LLMs lack both (they just regurgitate information and have neither understanding nor self-awareness).
I mean, if your argument is just semantics, that’s just… pedantic.
You could draw that line anywhere. The NPCs I play against in a strategy game could be “intelligence.”
You know what people mean. People are talking about ~anthropic cognition, which is clearly not what’s going on in current LLMs. They can do intelligent things, maybe they are an “intelligent” by some definition you define, but they are not even close to animalistic cognition.
You and others here act as if this is some clear cut thing, while actually defining it is extremely hard and everything but clear cut.
I find it scary how many people here are blindly against LMMs directly (not the big companies behind them or whatever) with about as much irrational hate as the people they despise, like Trump. They act the same way. Saying LMMs are not intelligent is so absurd I am not sure how to go forward, such a statement is oozing with bias.
I’m not againt LLMs. They’re usefull tools, and I’ve been tinkering with them since 2021, and generative ML before that. I have one loaded on my desktop pretty much all the time; DeepseekV4 0731 is running, right this second.
I use them all the time. I hack at them as a hobby; I know how useful they can be.
But you’re stopping just short of calling them “alive.” They’re not even close, not even in the same universe. They do tasks with intelligence or some variant of that, but they are not intelligent. And I’m not trying to be pedantic, that is a loaded term that implies cognition and adaptability they do not have.
They’re basically the same thing as weather prediction models, but for text output. They’re just a model.
And I think its very dangerous when people fall into the trap of thinking they are, fundamentally, more than that. That’s the fantasy Altman and such are selling the public, to con them.
Hence, the article above ^. What’s coming out of these leaders’ mouths does not match what people are getting, and they can tell. And that’s because the premise they’re being sold, of “artificial intelligence,” is a lie.
Thanks for proving my point, your service is invaluable.
LLMs are explosively imprecise, statistically luke-warm, grey goo extrusion sphincters. They can’t produce anything novel, at best they can reveal potentially plausible information from the data they were trained on, which then requires proven domain expertise to validate.
Intelligence requires comprehension, a trait LLMs are intrinsically incapable of performing.
Computers are particularly adept at iteration, and LLMs are an application that leverages this effectively. To wit, I’ll concede LLMs are ‘AI’, where that initialisation represents Accelerated Iteration, or in management as Amplified Incompetence, but as an example of Intelligence, that remains for those who are proud of their lack of the naturally occurring variety.
[0]: to frame a larger memory pool as a ‘context window’ is a misnomer, as context requires understanding and comprehension.
If you’re old enough you likely learned in school that animals aren’t intelligent or capable of consciousness or self-awareness. None of those things are true.
They’re used as food because that’s how people have been socialized. Nobody would willingly eat a dog, but they would eat a pig. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs.
How do you define intelligence? If LLMs are not intelligent NO other animal could ever be considered intelligent and many humans in the lower percentiles too. And that percentile is only going up.
Intelligence can be defined as sentience or sapience. LLMs lack both (they just regurgitate information and have neither understanding nor self-awareness).
I mean, if your argument is just semantics, that’s just… pedantic.
You could draw that line anywhere. The NPCs I play against in a strategy game could be “intelligence.”
You know what people mean. People are talking about ~anthropic cognition, which is clearly not what’s going on in current LLMs. They can do intelligent things, maybe they are an “intelligent” by some definition you define, but they are not even close to animalistic cognition.
You and others here act as if this is some clear cut thing, while actually defining it is extremely hard and everything but clear cut.
I find it scary how many people here are blindly against LMMs directly (not the big companies behind them or whatever) with about as much irrational hate as the people they despise, like Trump. They act the same way. Saying LMMs are not intelligent is so absurd I am not sure how to go forward, such a statement is oozing with bias.
I’m not againt LLMs. They’re usefull tools, and I’ve been tinkering with them since 2021, and generative ML before that. I have one loaded on my desktop pretty much all the time; DeepseekV4 0731 is running, right this second.
I use them all the time. I hack at them as a hobby; I know how useful they can be.
But you’re stopping just short of calling them “alive.” They’re not even close, not even in the same universe. They do tasks with intelligence or some variant of that, but they are not intelligent. And I’m not trying to be pedantic, that is a loaded term that implies cognition and adaptability they do not have.
They’re basically the same thing as weather prediction models, but for text output. They’re just a model.
And I think its very dangerous when people fall into the trap of thinking they are, fundamentally, more than that. That’s the fantasy Altman and such are selling the public, to con them.
Hence, the article above ^. What’s coming out of these leaders’ mouths does not match what people are getting, and they can tell. And that’s because the premise they’re being sold, of “artificial intelligence,” is a lie.
Thanks for outing yourself. Makes it easy to just skip the conversation and not bother trying to open up a conversation made in bad faith.
Thanks for proving my point, your service is invaluable.
LLMs are explosively imprecise, statistically luke-warm, grey goo extrusion sphincters. They can’t produce anything novel, at best they can reveal potentially plausible information from the data they were trained on, which then requires proven domain expertise to validate.
Intelligence requires comprehension, a trait LLMs are intrinsically incapable of performing.
Define comprehension then.
Understanding, context[0].
Computers are particularly adept at iteration, and LLMs are an application that leverages this effectively. To wit, I’ll concede LLMs are ‘AI’, where that initialisation represents Accelerated Iteration, or in management as Amplified Incompetence, but as an example of Intelligence, that remains for those who are proud of their lack of the naturally occurring variety.
[0]: to frame a larger memory pool as a ‘context window’ is a misnomer, as context requires understanding and comprehension.
Most people don’t consider animals to have intelligence (outside of some apes) which is why they’re readily used as food.
If you’re old enough you likely learned in school that animals aren’t intelligent or capable of consciousness or self-awareness. None of those things are true.
They’re used as food because that’s how people have been socialized. Nobody would willingly eat a dog, but they would eat a pig. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs.