[dotnet00]

Like clockwork, out come the "but humans" deflections. An LLM is not a human-like intelligence. This is patently obvious, such comparisons are nonsensical and just further the problem of people anthropomorphizing a tool and treating it like an oracle.

[Zambyte]

You didn't answer the question.

[dotnet00]

I did, I said they aren't human-like intelligences, so countering with "humans make mistakes, are humans not intelligent?" is drawing a false equivalence between humans and LLMs.

Since we do not possess a definition of intelligence that isn't human-like, it would be meaningless to argue if LLMs are intelligent in general. All that can be said is that they are not intelligent in the way that humans are.

[Zambyte]

The question you answered was rhetorical; obviously humans are intelligent. There is another question that actually has an interesting answer after it. In fact, it's not possible to have a meaningful discussion without answering it. I thought that was obvious :)

[dotnet00]

Maybe I'm miscommunicating, I know that the question about whether or not humans are intelligent is rhetorical. What I'm trying to say is that "humans make mistakes and are obviously intelligent, so a probabilistic syllable generator can be considered intelligent despite making mistakes" does not necessarily follow because at best they're different kinds of intelligences.

In my rush to be a smartass, I did miss that you also asked what definition of intelligence they were working with though, so I suppose I didn't really add anything besides unnecessary snark (-‿-")