[skilled]

Exactly. This is super evident when you start asking for more complex questions in CS, and when asking for intermediate-level code examples.

Also the same for asking about apps/tools. Unless it is a super known app like Trello which has been documented and written about to death - the LLM will give you all kinds of features for a product, which it actually doesn’t have.

It doesn’t take long to realize that half the time all these LLMs just give you text for the sake of giving it.

[kylebenzle]

Agreed, calling an LLM "AI" is just silly and technically makes no sense, they are text generators based on text context.

[sph]

Meanwhile, on LLM hype threads, people are already thinking about AGI, when we haven't even cracked basic intelligence.

[terminalcommand]

Respectfully, I think we cracked basic intelligence. What do you imagine under basic intelligence?

LLMs can do homeworks, pass standardized exams, give advice WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC TRAINING.

You can invent an imaginary game, explain the rules to the LLM and let it play it. Just like that.

You can invent an imaginary computer language, explain the syntax to the LLM and it will write you valid programs in that language. Just like that.

If that is not intelligent I do not know what is. In both cases, the request you put in is imaginary, exists only in your head, there are no previous examples or resources to train on.

[sph]

> Respectfully, I think we cracked basic intelligence. What do you imagine under basic intelligence?

It all depends on your definition of intelligence. Mine is the ability to solve novel problems.

AI is unable to solve novel problems, only things it has been trained against. AI is not intelligent, unless you change the very definition of the word.

[terminalcommand]

I challenge you to imagine an imaginary game or computer language, explain the rules to the LLM. It will learn and play the game (or write programs in your invented language), although you imagined it. There was no resource to train on. Nobody knows of that game or language. LLM learns on the spot with your instructions and plays the game.

I cannot understand grad school level mathematics even if you give me all the books and papers in the world. I was not formally trained in mathematics, does that make me not intelligent?

[sph]

"Ability to solve novel problems" does not mean ability to solve all problems, nor to have all the knowledge in the world. A caveman can be as intelligent as you and I, even without being able to read.

Not having knowledge in mathematics has no impact on your intelligence quotient.

[ben-schaaf]

Huh? It's a meme that LLMs can't follow the rules of chess. Just tried tick tack toe on GPT 3.5 and not only did it pick bad moves it also failed to evaluate the win condition.

[orwin]

If LLM could invent consistent imaginary games (or anything, like a short novel, or a 3 page essay on anything it want), maybe i would agree with you. The issue is that anything it create is inconsistent. The issue might be an artificial limitation to avoid copyright issues, but still.

[terminalcommand]

Actually my argument was the opposite. We as humans can imagine a game, explain it to the LLM and it learns, consistently, every time.

Generating new games is something else, that is creativity not merely intelligence.

[orwin]

But even that. Did you try to use GPT4 as a chess engine? I have issues with the Slav defense when i start with the queen's gambit, i tend to loose tempo or position, or both. I asked him continuations, and it was either wikipedia entries or nonsense, no in-between, no interesting insight. Now, i have asked a regional champion a bit before that (he is around 2.2k elo, so not exceptionally good) and although i can't seems to understand or use the concepts, he gave me interesting enough ideas to build on it.

Not saying that chatGPT isn't a great tool to write documentation or fiction (half my TTRPG campains are featuring description by ChatGPT), but i wouldn't call it intelligent.

[latexr]

> What do you imagine under basic intelligence?

Consistency, for one. I have asked LLMs the exact same question twice in a row and got wildly different answers. Intelligence presupposes understanding. When I ask an LLM “give me the first X of Y” and it replies “I cannot give you the first X of Y because there have only been X+10, here’s the first X+5 instead”, I’m hard pressed to call it intelligent.

[terminalcommand]

Have you tried specifying you field of inquiry which was algebra. Try saying solve this equation for me. I am a lawyer by day so I constantly face limitations of natural languages. The solution is to write less ambiguous prompts.

[latexr]

The field of inquiry was not algebra. It was a straightforward question using real numbers. I asked it about the first <number> kings of <country>. I don’t recall the exact number, only the stupidity of the answer.

So you understand, let’s say I asked for the first 20 kings of England. It told me it could not give the first 20 because there had only been 30, and that it would give me the first 25 instead.

[terminalcommand]

I disagree. They are not just text generators. LLMs are increasingly being multimodal they can hear and see.

We humans are also text generators based on text content. What we read and listen to influences what we write.

Llms are intelligent at least as us humans, they can listen, read, see, hear and communicate. With the latest additions they can also recall conversations.

They are not perfect. Main limitations are computing power available for each request and model size.

Have you tried Claude Opus 3 or GPT 3.5 or Gemini?

Microsofts copilot is dumb (I think they are resource constrained). I encourage everyone to try at least the 2-3 major LLMs before giving a judgement.

[terminalcommand]

Asking LLMs for imaginary facts is the wrong thing here, not the hallucination of the LLMs.

LLMs have constraints, these are computation power and model size. Just like a human would get overwhelmed if you request too much with vague instructions LLMs also get overwhelmed.

We need to learn how to write efficient prompts to use LLMs. If you do not understand the matter, be able to provide enough context, the LLM hallucinates.

Currently criticising LLMs on hallucinations by asking factual questions is akin to saying I tried to divide by zero on my calculator and it doesn't work. LLMs were not designed for providing factual information without context, they are thinking machines excelling at higher level intellectual work.

[dagw]

akin to saying I tried to divide by zero on my calculator and it doesn't work

The big difference is that if I try to divide by zero on my calculator, it will tell me it doesn't work and perhaps even given me a useful error message. It won't confidently tell me the answer is 17.

[JHonaker]

> Currently criticising LLMs on hallucinations by asking factual questions is akin to saying I tried to divide by zero on my calculator and it doesn't work. LLMs were not designed for providing factual information without context, they are thinking machines excelling at higher level intellectual work.

I would agree with you, but they're currently billed as information retrieval machines. I think it's perfectly valid to object to their accuracy at a task they're bad at, but being sold as a replacement for.

[terminalcommand]

This reminds me of movies shot in early times of the internet. We were warned that information on the internet could be inaccurate or falsified.

We found solutions to minimize wrong information for example we built and maintain Wikipedia.

LLMs will also come to a point where we can work with them comfortably. Maybe we will ask a council of various LLMs before taking an answer for granted, just like we would surf a couple of websites.

[frizlab]

A human would (should?) tell you “I’m overwhelmed, leave me alone!”

AI just spits out “stuff…”

[terminalcommand]

That's true, LLMs do not say I cannot understand I am overwhelmed at this stage. That is big drawback. You need to make sure that the AI understood it.

Some LLMs stop responding midway if the token limit is reached. That is another way of knowing that the LLM is overwhelmed. But most of the time they give lesser quality responses when overwhelmed.

[esailija]

Because it doesn't understand or have intelligence. It just knows correlations, which is unfortunately very good for fooling people. If there is anything else in there it's because it was explicitly programmed in like 1960's AI.

[terminalcommand]

I disagree. AI in 1960s relied on expert systems where each fact and rule was handcoded by humans. As far as I know LLMs learn on their own on vast bodies of text. There is some level of supervision, but it is bot 1960s AI. That is the reason we get hallucinations as well.

Expert systems are more accurate as they rely on first order logic.