I take intelligence to be a general problem solving ability. I think that's close to what most people mean by the term. By that definition it's clear that LLMs do have some level of intelligence - in some dimensions greater, lesser, or within the range of human intelligence.
What definition do you have for intelligence and how do LLMs fail to meet it?
What do you call being able to play chess and play any other well known game and do well on a battery of standardized tests and write code in a variety of languages in a variety of problems and ask questions and write fiction prose or poetry and generally just take a shot at anything you happen to ask.
I just can't take the idea that there is ambiguity as to whether these things have general problem solving skills seriously. They obviously do.
As I asked up-thread, if I had a chat window open with you, what's something you would be able to say or do that an unrestricted ChatGPT wouldn't?
I would be able to make a long list of things while maintaining logical consistency with things earlier the list. For instance, I asked ChatGPT-4 to create a schedule for a class, and it started off okay, but by the time it got to the end of the schedule, it started listing topics already covered. Really shows how it's just going off of statistics.
This is an example of ChatGPT performing poorly, but not being unable to do the thing. Nobody would say would say ChatGPT has human level intelligence across all domains - but that it has general problem solving ability. In other words, I'm saying it has an IQ, not that it has the highest possible IQ.
And, of course, there are domains where ChatGPT will do better than you. Since I don't know your skill set I don't know what those domains are, but I assume you'd agree. Just like ChatGPT giving a bad schedule doesn't disprove it's intelligence, you not being able to come up with acrostics or pangrams easily (or whatever) doesn't disprove yours.
GPT being bad this way, and being bad at "substitute words in all your responses" means it is leaking the abstraction to us. It's because of how its built and how it works. It means it isn't a general problem solving thing: it's a text prediction thing.
GPT is super impressive, I don't know how many times I need to say that, but it isn't intelligent, it doesn't understand the problem, and it doesn't seem like it ever will get there.
Well, I dunno. Similar to Stockfish, wolfram alpha, etc.. I suppose! (tho seems it's much worse at specific problems than these tools are at those problems).
I'm not saying it isn't impressive! Just that it very much seems to be really good at finding out what text should come next. I don't think that's general problem solving!
Giving it a SQL schema and getting valid queries out of it is super impressive, but I have no idea what it was trained on.
> I just can't take the idea that there is ambiguity as to whether these things have general problem solving skills seriously. They obviously do.
It is not obvious to me this is the case! Often I will get totally wrong answers, and I won't be able to get the correct answer out of it no matter how hard I try.
> what's something you would be able to say or do that an unrestricted ChatGPT wouldn't?
Well, I'd ask you clarifying questions, for one! GPT doesn't do this type of stuff without being forced to, and even then it fails at it.
Also if you asked me to do something like "replace the word 'a' with the word 'eleven' in all your replies to me" I won't do weird garbage stuff, like reply with:
"ok11y I will repl11ce all words with the word eleven when using the letter 'a'"
> Would you settle for "behave exactly as if they had some form of intelligence"?
Sure, it behaves as if it has some form of intelligence in the sense that it can take external input, perform actions in reaction to this input, and produce outputs dependent on the input.
This historically has been known as a computer program.
Never fails that when a techbro has been told LLMs aren't what they think they fall back to a field they certainly have more authority on: The human brain/intelligence.
The issue here is that the "LLMs have intelligence" side of the argument can lay out a simple mainstream conception of intelligence (general problem solving) and explain directly how LLMs meet this definition. The other side of the argument, at least here in this thread, seems to be an empty insult or two and... Nothing else?
Again, just say what you think intelligence is and why you think LLMs don't have it. If you can't do that then you have no business expressing an opinion on the subject. You really aren't expressing an opinion at all.
Brother if I could get people who believe ChatGPT is intelligent to post something more than "oh and arne't you just an autocomplete" then I would be so god damn happy.
This fantasy land you live in where people who have no formal training in the matter are making this high brow elegant reasoned argument doesn't exist and the reason you think the "other side of the argument" is just being insulting is because the burden of proof is not on us.
It doesn't help that half the time you guys post you directly contradict the main researcher's own assertions.
This just isn't true at all, though. Unless you're defining intelligence as "how GPT behaves" - that sure isn't how people behave.
Even GPT-4 it is easy to get it into a loop where it's just swapping one wrong answer for another. It doesn't act like it is intelligent - it acts like it is trying to predict the next text to display! Because that is what it is doing!
What definition do you have for intelligence and how do LLMs fail to meet it?