[rhdjsjebshjffn]

I can't speak for anyone else, but these models only seem about as smart as google search, with enormous variability. I can't say I've ever had an interaction with a chatbot that's anything redolent of interaction with intelligence.

Now would I take AI as a trivia partner? Absolutely. But that's not really the same as what I look for in "smart" humans.

[selcuka]

> But that's not really the same as what I look for in "smart" humans.

Note that "smarter than smart humans" and "smarter than most humans" are not the same. The latter is a pretty low bar.

[hmapple]

Have you tried any SOTA models like o3?

If not, I strongly encourage you to discuss your area of expertise with it and rate based on that

It is incredibly competent

[int_19h]

SOTA models can be pretty smart, but this particular model is a very far cry from anything SOTA.

[rhdjsjebshjffn]

I'm not really sure what to look for, frankly. It makes a rather uninteresting conversation partner and its observations of the world bland and mealy-mouthed.

But potentially maybe I'm just not looking for a trivia partner in my software.

[sureglymop]

The image description capabilities are pretty insane, crazy to think it's all happening on my phone. I can only imagine how interesting this is accessibility wise, e.g. for vision impaired people. I believe there are many more possible applications for these on a smartphone than just chatting with them.

[anonzzzies]

>anything redolent of interaction with intelligence

compared to what you are used to right?

I know it's elitist but most people <=100 iq (and no, this is not exact obviously, but we have not many other things to go by) are just ... well, a lot of state of the art LLMs are better at everything compared, outside body 'things' (for now) of course, as they don't have any. They hallucinate/bluff/lie as much as the humans and the humans might know they don't know, but outside that, the LLMs win at everything. So I guess that, for now, people with 120-160 iqs find LLMs funny but wouldn't call them intelligent, but below that...

My circle of people I talk with during the day has changed since I took on more charity which consists of fixing up old laptops and installing Ubuntu on them; I get them for free from everyone and I give them to people who cannot afford, including some lessons and remote support (which is easy as I can just ssh in via tailscale). Many of them believe in chemtrails, vaccinations are a gov ploy etc and multiple have told me they read that these AI chatbots are nigerian or indian (or so) farms trying to fraud them out of 'things' (they usually don't have anything to fraud otherwise I would not be there). This is about half of humanity; Gemma is gonna be smarter than all of them, even though I don't register any LLM as intelligence and with the current models, it won't happen either. Maybe a breakthrough in models will be made that changes it, but it has not much chance yet.

[disgruntledphd2]

> but most people <=100 iq

This is incorrect, IQ tests are normally scaled such that average intelligence is 100, and such that they are approximately normally distributed so that most people will be somewhere between 85-115 (66% on average).

[selcuka]

> but most people <=100 iq

> average intelligence is 100

You both are saying the same thing.

IQ is defined such that both average and mean would be equal 100. The combination of sub-100 and exactly-100 would be more people than above-100, hence "most people <=100 iq".

[tptacek]

Both average and mean, you say.

[selcuka]

Oops, I meant both median and mean.

[rhdjsjebshjffn]

Frankly I have no clue what value the term "average" has after trying to follow this conversation.

[anonzzzies]

Yep and those people can never 'win' against current llms, let alone future ones. Outside motorcontrol which I specifically excluded.

85 is special housing where I live... LLMs are far beyond that now.

[disgruntledphd2]

I'm not convinced this is true. I suspect that they'd mostly fail a version of Ravens matrices that didn't appear in the training set.

[rhdjsjebshjffn]

How are you living such that you're regularly pitting humans against computers

Not only is this unbelievable, it's reprehensible

[GTP]

Judging from your comment, it seems that your statistical sample is heavily biased as well, as you are interacting with people that can't afford a laptop. That's not representative of the average person.

[rhdjsjebshjffn]

I agree; but what are we supposed to do? Insight has always been paired with the empathy of not having it but

I refuse to touch the IQ bait