[voakbasda]

Partly serious, from the perspective that the goalpost for "clearly" acknowledging AI have been raised every time the previous goalpost was achieved. Presently, we have LLMs that converse better than most humans, but most people still say they are not artificial intelligence.

In that regard, I think it fair to say that the criteria for acknowledging AI now effectively exceeds the criteria for being a human. In situations like the Turing Test, I'd wager most humans would already comes across as inferior in conversation as compared to our best LLMs.

If the LLM is not intelligent yet it still appears more intelligent than us, then it seems mathematically that our intelligence must be zero (or less).

[bbor]

Very cogent, thanks for the response! I definitely agree. My simple solution to this question is to go back to Turing himself, who designed his test with explicit goal of avoiding terms like "intelligence" in favor of more meaningful ones, like "similarity" or "capability".

Anyone who says that GPT(4) isn't intelligent when it's turning out long, well-reasoned essays on demand seem a little stubborn, IMHO...