| I didn't say you don't build stuff: that diatribe is just very clearly someone speaking as an academic. You're presumably intelligent enough to realize the writer here wasn't trying to define "understanding" from first principles. And from a more practical mindset you'd hopefully realize it's not a useful expenditure of energy for them or the reader to enter the tarpit in the first place. - So far, if I extract the one practice-minded point you've touched on, it's much narrower: how the lack of generalization intersects with parties making claims about "PhD levels of intelligence" based on narrow benchmarks. That's the conversation that can be had without resorting to strawmen or declaring an impasse on the language used to describe these systems until we've found the terms that satisify all other disciplines in addition to this one. Maybe you've spent your life absorbing Knuth's essence and know better than me, but he strikes me as pragmatic enough to not fall for that trap either. He even refers to LLMs as X% intelligent machines after he decided having someone else use ChatGPT on his behalf was the best way to evaluate it, right? |