[dartos]

> It's crazy to me people would rather deny the intelligence of a large segment of the human population than admit to the increasing overlap between it and AI.

You’re the one here denying. I think the vast majority (if not all) of humans are intelligent under my definition. You do not.

I don’t think LLMs or other statistical models are.

[welferkj]

Under the latest definition you made up on the spot, yes. And definitely not all.

So what's your plan when the fraction keeps shrinking? When you're no longer in it?

This is simple interpolation. It is plainly obvious that at some point soon, you will be faced with the fact that there's nothing magical about intelligence. When that happens, will you concede that, or start thinking of yourself as a soulless automaton?

If you can't project that far forward, I question whether you meet any meaningful definition of "intelligent" right now.

[dartos]

> So what's your plan when the fraction keeps shrinking?

What fraction? How would it shrink?

I don’t think that humans, as a species, are becoming non intelligent en masse. In fact, I think that we are, by default, intelligent.

That’s where our opinions seem to irreconcilably differ.

> you will be faced with the fact that there's nothing magical about intelligence.

I dont think there’s anything “magical” about anything. I just don’t think that a statistical model can achieve intelligence as we think of it with regards to humans.

You may see the recent trend of text generation models as new intelligent machines, but I’ve been studying and working these kinds of statistical models for about a decade (since 2016) and have seen these opinions spouted only to quiet down once the logarithmic improvement curve is reached. I don’t see any reason why these LLMs wouldn’t follow the same pattern.

> This is simple interpolation

Interpolation of what? You’re assuming that the goalpost will always shift, but in reality we just don’t have a generally agreed upon definition all. Either way, any definition of intelligence that rules out the majority of humanity is an incorrect definition off the bat, as pretty much all humans are intelligence.

There exists some accurate definition of intelligent such that almost any human satisfies it, but statistical models do not. I’m sure if I studied the philosophy of intelligent I could put one into words, but I’m ill equipped to do so.

> If you can't project that far forward, I question whether you meet any meaningful definition of "intelligent" right now.

Are you just trying to be mean, or do you actually believe that people who disagree with you are not intelligent?

We’ll see in 5 years that this intelligence hype will fade just like that last 2 AI booms.

This isn’t at all to say that we will never make a machine with intelligence that rivals humans, just that I don’t think the statistical model route will get us there… and it hasn’t.

[dartos]

One last pretty funny thing:

Here a short chatgpt convo about how personification bias can cause people to believe that statistical models are intelligent. I think it's what's fooling so many people.

https://chatgpt.com/share/670549a3-2f9c-8001-81c1-d950c626ad...