[RandomLensman]

No, sorry, I view code creation as easier than other things.

I meant it replicates generally poor human reasoning capabilities but there is no general method to reason something out (because token probabilities are not informative to that end). You can train humans somewhat to that end, but not easy.

[vidarh]

> No, sorry, I view code creation as easier than other things.

Then we will get nowhere, as it's trivially easy to stump even above averagely intelligent people with problems revolving around reasoning about code.

To me you've then set the bar at a level the vast majority of people can't meet and that's utterly absurd.

And code is just formalised language.

[RandomLensman]

Formalised stuff might favor probabilistic approaches - that was my point.

Anyway, I think "intelligence" and "reasoning" or not always the same to start with.

Why is setting bar high absurd? It is the same way I demand my pocket calculator to be so much better than humans at calculating things.

[vidarh]

Firstly, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that hypothesis. But secondly, this is also poor reasoning. Your argument boils down to implying that if it's good at X, then there might be a bias in its favour with respect to X that makes it a poor judge of whether it's reasoning. By extension, making that argument engages in the logical fallacy of begging the question (assuming the conclusion).

> Why is setting bar high absurd? It is the same way I demand my pocket calculator to be so much better than humans at calculating things.

This is also poor reasoning. We demand the pocket calculator be better because otherwise we would have no use for it. It would be logically invalid to argue that if it was merely as capable as a human, maybe one that is not very good but still able to calculate, that it is unable to calculate at all.

[RandomLensman]

I would suggest to read what I wrote instead of projecting - anyway, ad hominens are always the end of a discussion. Good luck!

[moffkalast]

It must sting to be worse at reasoning than the thing you're claiming isn't capable of reasoning at all. I know it's hard to accept that something as simple as dumping a lot of data into a probabilistic engine will eventually be able to outperform a human at any task, but it is our unfortunate reality and the sooner one faces that the easier it'll be.

[vidarh]

I read what you wrote, and I responded to your arguments, not about you as a person, so as I pointed out elsewhere this is also not a valid argument - these were not ad hominems.