[aroman]

I don’t think that’s an accurate or useful characterization of modern AI like Claude at all. It is not simply regurgitating knowledge. It applies its knowledge to create bespoke solutions to the problem you pose to it, and is able to self evaluate its progress towards the completion criteria. If you don’t think that counts as “problem solving”, your definition would exclude nearly all knowledge work and engineering.

[geraneum]

People underestimate the vastness of training data (internet) and overestimate their ability to recognize if something is really bespoke. Not to say the no problem solving is happening, because there are many problems that we inefficiently solve again and again and the LLMs are making the solutions more accessible to everyone with a subscription.

[computably]

> It applies its knowledge to create bespoke solutions to the problem you pose to it, and is able to self evaluate its progress towards the completion criteria.

It imitates applying knowledge. The imitation may be uncanny, but assigning LLMs intentionality and ToM is a category error.

[igregoryca]

Does "applying knowledge" necessitate human-like intentionality and theory of mind? If you insist it does, and this is a category error, then we need a new category.

By analogy, consider that many have referred to classical, deterministic computing as some kind of "thinking" for the last half century+. Does this stop being kosher when the computer has an uncanny propensity for human language? Perhaps, but the computer is still clearly chewing through problems that would have required a lot of human thinking (e.g., arithmetic) in ages past.

I haven't seen any genuine proposals for words to replace the human mind analogues, let alone proposals that the anglosphere would plausibly adopt en masse.

[GiffertonThe3rd]

Indubitably, computably.

[squeegmeister]

It’s like saying you can’t make a unique sentence unless you first make unique words