[lb4r]

>LLMs are not intelligent by any stretch.

>There is no concrete definition so there is no concrete way of deciding if something is intelligent.

You say there is no concrete way of deciding if something is intelligent, yet you yourself have decided that LLMs are not intelligent.

[brandonwamboldt]

We may be unable to provide a concrete definition of what intelligence is, but we can certainly provide definitions for what it isn't. E.g. we don't need a concrete definition of intelligence to say that a rock isn't intelligent. A pencil isn't intelligent. A calculator isn't intelligence

[lb4r]

I don't disagree for the items you listed, but for something that exhibits what in many aspects can AT LEAST be mistaken for 'intelligence' (among signs of the complete opposite, of course), I would just say that there is no way for anyone to know.

[nuancebydefault]

I'd argue that a pencil has some intelligence.

[calibas]

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what the condition "concrete" means.

He's not saying there's no way of judging intelligence, he's just pointing out there's no universal agreement on what intelligence even is.

Edit: To add, this discussion becomes pure semantics. On one side is a strict definition of AGI, on the other side are the most generalized definitions of artificial intelligence. It gets kind of silly because technically, every "if" statement is a type of "AI" by the loosest definitions.

[lb4r]

>he's just pointing out there's no universal agreement on what intelligence even is.

Which is why I find it strange that he takes it upon himself to proclaim in a definitive manner that LLMs are not intelligent, and not "by any stretch."

[calibas]

Why would you find that strange? He's using his own definition of intelligence while acknowledging there's no universal agreement.

Expressing your own point of view while acknowledging that other points of view exist shouldn't be strange. Strange is not being able to see things from different perspectives, those people are abnormal even when they happen to be in the majority.

The only valid criticism I see is that "by any stretch" is hyperbolic, but that's easily forgivable.

[YetAnotherNick]

> As much as people want to believe, LLMs are not intelligent by any stretch

They said "As much as people want to believe" which means that it shouldn't be counted as intelligent by other people's definition. Even by most liberal interpretation, the comment(which is top rated) doesn't say what you are trying to imply

[calibas]

I'm not trying to imply something, you're ignoring what's explicitly stated:

"There is no concrete definition so there is no concrete way of deciding if something is intelligent."

The fact that it contradicts previous statements makes me believe there's some hyperbole going on.

[lb4r]

Except that he doesn't acknowledge other points of view:

>As much as people want to believe, LLMs are not intelligent by any stretch.

Acknowledging other points of view would have sounded more like "People are free to believe what they want, but LLMs don't strike me as intelligent."

[calibas]

>Except that he doesn't acknowledge other points of view

False, he explicitly acknowledges other points of view on what defines intelligence:

"There is no concrete definition so there is no concrete way of deciding if something is intelligent."

Acknowledging that your way of thinking isn't the only way of thinking doesn't make someone a hypocrite, it's actually a sign of intelligence (in my opinion).

[add-sub-mul-div]

There's no concrete way to prove my kid's imaginary friend isn't real, but that doesn't mean both sides have an equivalent likelihood and burden of proof.

[taneq]

If that were the only known fact about said imaginary friend on either side, then it would mean exactly that. The reason that there are different expectations of veracity are exactly because there are a bunch of priors being held about imaginary friends, by definition, not being real.

[ben_w]

The output of the LLMs would suggest a different metaphor. The supposed divine inspiration of the Bible, perhaps?

Compare "Intelligent Design" vs. the use of genetic algorithms in AI. Simple forms of intelligence can get you a long way and can seem very impressive, especially if they have a lot of subjective experiences, which DNA gets from deep time and which AI gets from transistors outpacing synapses by the ratio to which a pack of wolves outpace continental drift.

[lb4r]

But why are his toys floating around in the air and moving on their own? Why is there a guitar playing itself? Burden of proof just shifted.

[add-sub-mul-div]

You see the strings and wires and notice the bad ventriloquism.

[password54321]

It is actually quite well defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelli...

LLMs are lacking in fluid intelligence and there is even a good benchmark for it called the abstract reasoning corpus.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

I have a pet rock. By your standard I can't say it's not intelligent.

[lb4r]

Sure you can. Just don't shut down counter-arguments from, say, believers in certain form of animism, by implying that their side is invalid because there is no universally accepted definition of intelligence without giving your own assertion that same treatment.