[agentultra]

> I would already, without hesitation, describe GPT4 as strictly more intelligent than my cat

Well if we're going to define intelligence based one what you believe it is then why don't you explain it?

I'm not the one claiming to know what intelligence is or that we can even simulate a system capable of emulating this characteristic. So if you hold the specification for human thought I think you ought to share it with us.

> Why not?

By definition. ChatGPT is designed for a single function, the description of which are the specifications and the code that implements it. Nothing in this specification implies it is capable of anything except what is described.

Calling it, "intelligent," is a mischaracterization at best and anthropomorphism at worst. The same follows for calling it "smart" or claiming it is, "skilled at X."

[int_19h]

You're the one claiming that GPT is not in any sense, shape, or form intelligent. Such claim inevitably carries a very strong implication that you know what intelligence is.

[agentultra]

One doesn’t have to know how thoughts are formed to have good theories and reasonable hypothesis.

Science makes progress with imperfect information all the time, including incomplete models of neurological phenomenon, intelligence, and consciousness.

[myrmidon]

My explicit definition for "intelligence" would be something with an internal model of <reality> that you can exchange information with.

Cat is better at this than the robot vacuum, gradeschooler is better still and GPT (to me) seems to trump all of those.