Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never said that humans are better than LLM's along every axis. Rather, a reasonable definition of intelligence would necessarily encompass domains that LLM's are either incapable of or inferior to us. Here might be some definitions of intelligence for example: > The aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment. > "...the result…
>I never said that humans are better than LLM's along every axis. Rather, a reasonable definition of intelligence would necessarily encompass domains that LLM's are either incapable of or inferior to us. So all humans are overwhelmingly more intelligent but cannot even manage to be as capable in a significant number of domains ? That's not what overwhelming means. >I would consider statistical reasoning systems that…
When the amount of domains in which humans are more capable than LLM's vastly exceeds the amount of domains in which LLM's are more capable than humans, yes.
I also agree that we don't have a great understanding of either human or LLM intelligence, but we can at least observe major differences and conclude that there are, in fact, major differences. In the same way we can conclude that both birds and planes have major differences, and saying that "there's nothing unique about birds, look at planes" is just a really weird thing to say.
> If we were to be more accurate to the brain in silicon, it would be even less efficient than LLMs
Do you think perhaps this massive difference points to there being a significant and foundational structural and functional difference between these types of intelligences?