[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.