Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have a good answer. But I have a good reason to say LLMs are not intelligent. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47918103
If you can’t define it you cannot say where it is present or not.
The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
31–40 of 92 posts
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#32Just wondering... What is Intellgience?
In psychology, there is no definition of intelligence, but it is generally understood as whatever it is that intelligence tests measure.
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#33We are already on the cusp of fully automated reasoning, and once we have fully automated reasoning, OpenAI and Anthropic can just dedicate part of their compute towards generating new high quality novel output, which will then be fed as training data during pretraining of subsequent models.
I don't believe that to be possible in general. Because we've already had Millenia of philosophers attempting to make discoveries through sheer reasoning and with the small in the grand scheme of things exception of formal logic failed to do so. Which leads me to a principle: No matter how smart you are, you still need the real world as a reference. Once again LLMs will have to be bound to a source of entropy or feed…
Well, yes, that's why the rest of science was invented, no? I did not mean to imply that AI would restrict itself to philoshical thinking and formal logic.
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have a good answer. But I have a good reason to say LLMs are not intelligent. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47918103
If you can’t define it you cannot say where it is present or not.
That is not true. We can detect the presence of a thing by the observation of something it causes. That does not imply we have a good definition of the thing.
At that point, we can only define it as something that causes this observation. And that is not very useful.
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#35Just wondering... What is Intellgience?
No consensus but a decent definition is: Ability to utilize resources to achieve outcomes
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#36The rise of AI writing has only been matched by superficial articles comprised of ideas salad that evince no deep theoretical or historical understanding. Crappy writing has and always will exist, AI doesn’t change that, it just makes awful writing grammatical.
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also does not have access to any knowledge that isn't public or written down or even not in their training data.
Isn’t the same true for a human?
It isn't. I constantly have access to non-public information, like the life of my peers and corporate secrets. Is it useful or essential or even desirable for LLM products? Hardly not, but it exists.
Edit: for "not in the training data" yes, humans generally can't know what they can't know.
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#38Generative AI is the average of all human knowledge
It is the average of sub sets of humans, which can be vastly better than just entire population.
Example it can easily do moderately advanced calculus, that is way better than the average human.
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#39We are already on the cusp of fully automated reasoning, and once we have fully automated reasoning, OpenAI and Anthropic can just dedicate part of their compute towards generating new high quality novel output, which will then be fed as training data during pretraining of subsequent models.
I don't believe that to be possible in general. Because we've already had Millenia of philosophers attempting to make discoveries through sheer reasoning and with the small in the grand scheme of things exception of formal logic failed to do so. Which leads me to a principle: No matter how smart you are, you still need the real world as a reference. Once again LLMs will have to be bound to a source of entropy or feed…
It's proven to be possible in narrow areas like Go. There is no entropy or feedback or whatever. It just keeps getting better.
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#40Generative AI is the average of all human knowledge
Not quite. Large amounts of data going into these models has already been curated, otherwise you would get a tremendous amount of wrong answers for even the most basic questions.