[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

There aren’t many fundamental unique differences between an 8086 and a M3 Max.

But the differences in scale are so vast that it opens massively different capabilities.

At some point, quantitative differences are so large they become qualitative differences.

Although both can hold matrices in memory and do math operations, the M3 Max can hold so much more and run math operations so fast that LLM inference becomes possible making it seem “intelligent” on a whole different level than an 8086 even though they are at some fundamental level very similar.

[bayindirh]

You're implying that bees are less intelligent than humans.

However they can sense electromagnetic fields and can sense whether a flower they're interested have pollen or not without looking at it with their eyes.

Elephants and whales can communicate over vast distances via sound. Bats can see without eyes. Salmons and pigeons can find the point they have born without even trying. A dog can smell history of a place, plus get much more information from a single smell.

Humans can do none of these things without tools.

Also, in electronics, there are accelerators which are much simpler in transistor count and architecture, but which can do much more than a more complex counterparts. GROQ inference cards and FPGAs come into my mind.

So neither capability, nor capacity in numbers is a valid measure for intelligence or capabilities in practice.

Just because a bee has less neurons than a chimp doesn't mean it can't have some kind of comparable intelligence when you compare the things they can accomplish.

Oh, also crows understand and exploit physical phenomena and can manipulate things with tools to get what they want.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

> You're implying that bees are less intelligent than humans.

Intelligent is not a synonym for “have amazing capabilities” but rather the ability to process and adapt to new information and transform their environment.

No other life form comes even close to humans in that regard. Our abilities (for better or worse) are godlike compared to other animals. There is a reason this epoch is called the “Anthropocene”.

[CuriouslyC]

This isn't so correct. Humans in isolation aren't so vastly superior from other animals, if you observed primitive humans and your typical troop of chimps it wouldn't be the slam dunk you're singing about. The truth is we're just enough better to develop and use written communication, and the majority of human progress beyond that has been trial/error and imitation with successes preserved through writing. Transmission of the written word enabled humanity to become a collective intelligence of sorts, individually we aren't that smart.

[notahacker]

Our communication and experimentation was sufficiently far ahead of other advanced mammals to cause mass extinction events long before writing came into play. (It's debatable whether some fairly advanced civilizations even had "writing" in the sense of general symbolic communication)

"Just enough better" is doing a lot of work when that leads to space travel and computers and inventing reasons to feel bad about our phenomenally efficient expansion and predation, whilst members of other species prove extremely limited at acquiring human knowledge even when we're expressly trying to share it with them.

[FrustratedMonky]

"comes even close"

I think the argument in this thread is more between people thinking animals have 'zero' ability, it is just instinct, or some other mechanism different than what is taking place in a human. And the group that is saying, animals are using the same mechanisms as a human, just humans are scaled up. Abilities between Humans and animals is a sliding scale.

They are wanting to argue that Humans have a singular ability that does NOT exist anywhere else, kind of a 'divine' argument. And animals are doing something different.

"comes even close" is indicating, it's a scale, might be a big scale, but it is the same scale.

[SilasX]

>You're implying that bees are less intelligent than humans.

>However they can sense electromagnetic fields and can sense whether a flower they're interested have pollen or not without looking at it with their eyes.

Which, yes, like your other examples, is an impressive feat, but not an impressive feat of intelligence. Perceiving one or another part of the spectrum isn't intelligence. Neither is hardwired responses. In contrast:

>Oh, also crows understand and exploit physical phenomena and can manipulate things with tools to get what they want.

That would be a feat of intelligence. But you're lumping all impressive feats into "intelligence", regardless of what's responsible for them.

[andsoitis]

> You're implying that bees are less intelligent than humans.

While bees thrive in their ecology by using intelligent behaviors like dancing, counting, navigating, remembering colors and scents, and making decisions using a process that resembles cost-benefit analysis, the sheer scale and complexity of human intelligence is unparalleled in teh animal kingdom. Our neocortex facilitates advanced cognitive functions, including our capacity for reflection, conceptual thought, and technological innovation generally puts humans at a higher level of cognitive complexity.

[hoseja]

Humans can predict the future better than any of the listed examples.