| I agree with Moravec. As he points out a bit later on: > Only on the outside, where they can be appreciated as a whole, will the impression of intelligence emerge. A human brain, too, does not exhibit the intelligence under a neurobiologist's microscope that it does participating in a lively conversation. We only have fuzzy definitions of "intelligence", not any essential, unambiguous things we can point to at a minute level, like a specific arrangement of certain atoms. Put another way, we've used the term "intelligent" to refer to people (or not) because we found it useful to describe a complex bundle of traits in a simple way. But now that we're training LLMs to do things that used to be assumed to be exclusively the capacity of humans, the term is getting stretched and twisted and losing some of its usefulness. Maybe it would be more useful to subdivide the term a bit by referring to "human intelligence" versus "LLM intelligence". And when some new developments in AI seem like they're different from "LLM intelligence", we can call them by whatever distinguishes them, like "Q* intelligence", for example. |