[anon7000]

Frankly, it does not matter how we want to define intelligence. If someone wants to pay a couple bucks on tokens and get an ok solution to a problem faster than they can hire someone, they are paying for some kind of intelligence. And for many fields will get a worse result from humans who don’t know what they’re saying. Yes all the other stuff is true. yes, it’s dangerous to trust. yes, it sounds smarter than it is. And yes, someone is paying for some unit of intelligence, even if it’s a low or medium tier of regurgitated intelligence.

Among all the downsides, this also means that certain people without a lot of money or time are potentially getting access to answers and solutions they didn’t have access to before. (This is happening, and yes there are plenty of downsides and “it’s not good enough at whatever”… but that scenario is still happening)

This smells a lot like commodified intelligence.

[autoexec]

> If someone wants to pay a couple bucks on tokens and get an ok solution to a problem faster than they can hire someone, they are paying for some kind of intelligence.

By that measure I can get a kind of intelligence for free using Wikipedia. There's useful information there, and it's not always trustworthy, but I can get answers. Just like Wikipedia though the source of that intelligence is entirely human and the chatbot is just an interface. Thankfully, Wikipedia articles aren't written to trick people into thinking that the website has a brain and emotions and it doesn't our waste time with faked obsequiousness and ass-kissing.