[dinfinity]

> If you're in tune with animals and spend time around a parrot, it's obvious there is a lot going on in their minds.

Not saying there isn't and somewhat offtopic, but if you apply this to LLMs those are much, much 'smarter' than all the animals people like to call intelligent (or something similar). If you disagree, please tell me for which task requiring intelligence you'd rather have an animal's wit than that of an LLM.

I really do feel we should be taking the current state of affairs as a starting point to recalibrate what counts as smart or worth 'protecting', whether it's our beloved animal friends or something inorganic. Simultaneously believing "birds are super smart" and "LLMs are just stochastic parrots" seems absurd.

[Jensson]

> If you disagree, please tell me for which task requiring intelligence you'd rather have an animal's wit than that of an LLM.

Navigating your way to a location without colliding with anything. Finding food in the woods. Such stuff that animals can do that we yet have AI be able to do.

[gf000]

Moving a complex system of muscles so that they can just stand upright is already very very complex, let alone intercepting a prey's movement mid-flight by just controlling all those muscles.

People way overestimate the actually intelligent part of LLMs vs simply being good at recalling context-related stuff from the training data.

[dinfinity]

Complexity does not require intelligence. Modern computers (even without AI) and technological systems do incredibly complex things and I'm quite sure you would not call those systems (again, without AI) intelligent.

[gf000]

There is a difference between a problem being complex and you try to find a solution to it (hard), vs a program being complex. The latter is trivial to execute, but that is entirely different from analysing it.

[dinfinity]

So are animals trivially executing a complex program or are they 'analyzing' a complex problem?

LLMs can (more often) successfully find solutions for far more complex problems than animals can. So where does that leave us?

[dinfinity]

Neither of those are based in intelligence, but rather in dexterity, agility and sensing capabilities. Try again, and this time please read the question carefully and answer in good faith rather than trying to (unsuccessfully) look for a loophole.

[sh4rks]

Dogs can be trained for a variety of tasks that require wit. Such as helping the blind navigate. And sniffing for illegal drugs.

[dinfinity]

Sniffing for illegal drugs requires wit? Right.

And 'trained' clearly means it is not something based in intelligence, but in repetition and conditioning.

Answer the actual question.

[sh4rks]

If you think being a guide dog doesn't require intelligence, you're delusional.

> answer the actual question

I literally did. You asked, which task that requires intelligence would I rather use an animal over an Llm. I'd much rather have a dog as my guide dog than an Llm. It can use it's innate intelligence to sense danger, navigate around obstacles it's never seen before, and even communicate with other humans through barking.

> trained clearly means it is not something based in intelligence, but in repetition and conditioning

I can't tell if you're trolling at this point. Llms are also trained and therefore are based on repetition and conditioning.

[dinfinity]

> If you think being a guide dog doesn't require intelligence, you're delusional.

I see you dropped "sniffing out drugs" as a task requiring intelligence, that's a start.

> It can use it's innate intelligence to sense danger

So sensing danger requires intelligence? Bacteria can sense danger.

> navigate around obstacles it's never seen before

Not intelligence, but dexterity. Only if it has to solve a puzzle does intelligence come into play. And dogs suck ass at solving puzzles. Some birds are somewhat decent at it, but still very far removed from what an LLM can do.

> communicate with other humans through barking

Yeah, Timmy fell down a well, right? Perfect example of 'intelligence' and something you'd prefer a dog over an LLM /s

> I can't tell if you're trolling at this point. Llms are also trained and therefore are based on repetition and conditioning.

That is a fair point, but remember that your training examples were "sniffing for drugs" and "being a guide dog", both of which are very much in-distribution training (guide dogs only do a very specific very small set of things and require a lot of training to even be able to do those).

But for the sake of argument, let's say that there are some tasks requiring intelligence where you would prefer a dog over an LLM. Answer me this: Roughly what percentage of distinct tasks requiring intelligence would you prefer to have a dog over an LLM? For each task, imagine that failure to complete the task will cause serious harm to your loved ones, so the stakes are high.