|
|
|
|
|
|
by gjm11
347 days ago
|
|
|
Yup, LLMs are very different from human brains, so whatever they have isn't intelligence as we know it. But ... 1. If the subtext is "not intelligence as we know it, but something much inferior": that may or may not be true, but crapness at spelling puzzles isn't much evidence for it. 2. More generally, skill with spelling puzzles just isn't a good measure of intelligence. ("Intelligence" is a slippery word; I mean something like "the correlation between skill at spelling puzzles and most other measures of cognitive ability is pretty poor". Even among humans, still more for Very Different things the "shape" of whose abilities is quite different from ours.) |
|
|
I'm not making a judgement call on whether it is or isn't intelligence, just that it's not like any sort of intelligence we've ever observed in man or beast.
To me, LLMs feels more like "A tool with built-in knowledge" rather than "A person who read up on the specific subject"
I know that many people use the analogy of coding LLMs as "An eager junior engineer", but even eager junior engineers only lack knowledge. They can very well come up with something that they've never seen before. In fact, it's common for them to reinvent a code method or code mechanism that they've never seen before.
And that's only for coding, which is where 99.99% of LLM usage falls today.
This is why I say it's not intelligence as we define it, but it's certainly something even if it is not an intelligence we recognise.
It's not unintelligent, but it's not intelligent either. It's something else.