| >But it's just statistics, a fancy text predictor, a Markov-chain. Surely these scientists that work in the field of AI and are intimately familiar with how this stuff works aren't so stupid as to think emergent behavior potentially resembling intelligence could result from such simple systems? Well, it has already shown "emergent behavior potentially resembling intelligence", like answering questions and performing complex tasks, so there's that. You might argue "but it makes mistakes", but people, even very intelligent ones also do make mistakes. You might also argue "but it's just text and statistics". Well, snd a computer is just very simple logical gates doing very simple operations. It can be done even entirely with NAND gates. Still most scientists do believe that a computer can model human intelligence given a model of the brain to run. So if it can do what a human does by just using very simple interactions from very simple NAND gates, why would statistical processing, which can be even more elaborate, fare worse? Heck, given the appropriate training input it might even be feasible to build a turing machine inside the weighted LLM. You might also argue "but its intelligence is just based on its training set". Well, how would a human perform without their own training set? Memories, education, sensory input, feedback mechanisms like pain and touch, and so on? >It's just looking up the answers. No hint of intelligence. Just a mindless machine. This is just taking its own premise for granted. If anything, this argument shows "no hint of intelligence". |