[km3r]

Because it's so entirely reductive and misunderstanding of where the technology has progressed. Hello world is s computer program. So it Microsoft Windows. New levels of "intelligence" unlock with greater complexity of a program.

Like look at our brains. We know decently well how a single neuron works. We can simulate a single one with "just a computer program". But clearly with enough layers some form of complexity can emerge, and at some level that complexity becomes intelligence.

[andsoitis]

> with enough layers some form of complexity can emerge, and at some level that complexity becomes intelligence.

It isn’t a given that complexity begets intelligence.

[DiogenesKynikos]

But in the case of both biological and computer neurons, it is an empirical fact that complexity has led to intelligence.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

and it isn't a given that it doesn't, so maybe a little openness towards the possibility is warranted?

[andsoitis]

I’m open, but the comment I responded to asserted: “complexity becomes intelligence”, as if it is a fact. And it isn’t proven.

[DiogenesKynikos]

We have LLMs, which are obviously intelligent. How is it not proven?

[PaulDavisThe1st]

There is no "obvious" about it, unless you define "intelligent" in a rather narrow (albeit Turing-esque) way.

The suspicion is that they are good at predicting next-token and not much else. This is still a research topic at this point, from my reading.

[DiogenesKynikos]

You can't predict the next token in an arbitrary text unless you are highly intelligent and have a vast body of knowledge.

They're obviously intelligent in the way that we judge intelligence in humans: we pay attention to what they say. You ask them a question about an arbitrary subject, and they respond in the same way that an intelligent person would. If you don't consider that intelligence, then you have a fundamentally magical, unscientific view of what intelligence is.

[km3r]

I said "intelligence can emerge" not that it will.