Large models of what? Mistaking engineering achievements for linguistic agency

Where did I ever say that the thing was doing lookup? I only said it was producing a probability distribution.

Is your claim that all programs are just doing lookup?

> If the response to a algebraic equation was based upon probability of tokens in a corpus...

Ah, I see the confusion. When I say “probability distribution” I do not mean “for each option, an empirical fraction out of all the options, that this particular option appeared in the corpus”. Rather, by “probability distribution”, I mean (in the discrete case) “an assignment of a number which is at least zero and at most one, to each of the options, and such that the sum of the assigned values add up to 1”. I am allowing that this assignment of values is computed (from what is being conditioned on) in any way whatsoever .

If the correct answer is a number, it may compute the entire correct number through some standard means, and then look at however many correct tokens from the number are already present, and assign a probability of 1 to the correct next one, and 0 to all other tokens. If conditioning on a partial answer that has parts wrong, it may use an arbitrary distribution.

He's saying they're of inferior "reasoning" (but equal in memory). That's hardly saying they're not intelligent or recognising them as not intelligent.

I don't think you will find anyone saying what you think someone's saying. "Not intelligent" is indeed a rock or a piece of wood. "Inferior" is a different concept.

"Inferior", "sub-human", "feeble-minded", sure, people keep saying things like that for other humans. But, "not intelligent" in the sense of "can't use language", "can't use tools", "can't tie own shoelaces", that would be very hard to maintain in the face of very easy to make observations. Which, you know, is exactly my point.

Are you using "intelligent" to mean "very smart" or something similar? That's not what I'm saying. I'm really just pointing to the difference between 0 intelligence, like a rock, and undeniable intelligence, like a 5-year old child.

We already have alien intelligences on this planet that are not often getting invoked in discussions of the possible unfamiliarity of the difference of computers. Let's take the octopus distributed thinking or the hive's collective intelligence. They could shine a light on how computers do or don't work, yet how many people are holding the torch?

I think self-correcting of science can be nice, but the acknowledge of racism operates on cultural scales of decades and centuries. The corrected discussions are likely to appear long after computer thinking breakthroughs which happen on the scale of years to decades. So you're right, but that doesn't matter today. But I admit I'm not sure if that's what you meant here.

Scant few, unfortunately. I think in the AI community there is a general agreement that bees and ants have some kind of intelligence but I don't see anyone doing much about it, like using it as a model for AI (although note e.g. Ant Colony Optimisation and other biologically inspired algorithms). For example, I have seriously considered applying for funding for a project titled "Arthropod-Like Intelligence" that would seek to create an artificial agent (a robot of some sort) with autonomous capabilities at the level of a spider. Unfortunately, every time I start to write up the proposal I immediately imagine the ridicule it -and I- would be subjected to by any funding committee and fellow researchers in AI and I give up. So yes, the current agreement about what counts as intelligence is limiting to the advancement of science. But there is some progress, slow as it is- thanks to people bolder than myself.

With octopi I think it's a different matter. People generally don't get to see how octopi behave. Once they're shown examples, like in videos etc, I think most are convinced. So it's more an element of surprise, rather than a real resistance to the idea. I think the debate is more on different aspects of let's say broader cognition, like self-awareness, the ability to feel pain, etc. Again I think the safe bet here is to adopt the default position that all animals are intelligent, self-aware and can feel pain, since there's no reason that humans should be special in that respect. But, really, it's not my field so my opinion doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

>> The corrected discussions are likely to appear long after computer thinking breakthroughs which happen on the scale of years to decades.

Yeah, unfortunately science takes a very long time. But it works in the end and there's no better way we know. I don't guess I have to argue about that though.

I agree that there are dangers in trusting consensus as a mechanism for advancement of knowledge, and I see your point about risking losing focus on the border. But I think it is also very important to have a common body of knowledge that we can all agree on. Take flying again: nobody disputes the fact that planes are flying (again, nobody who isn't just being contrary). We can work out the gray areas in time and they don't necessarily make progress impossible. E.g. maybe we can't agree on whether hovercrafts fly, but we can still make them and use them.

So there is a limiting effect, like I point out in my other comment, but it is not a hard lock on progress. And I think that avoiding endless philosophical discussions is a big advantage.

If there is a better heuristic then I'm happy to embrace it btw. But, is there?