>You keep using that word "expert" and I don't doubt they're experts in machine learning, GAN and NNs but at this point what we're looking for is experts in wha

>You keep using that word "expert" and I don't doubt they're experts in machine learning, GAN and NNs but at this point what we're looking for is experts in what intelligence IS and the problem is .. nobody knows. So the experts say they don't know. But you make the opposite claim. You previously claimed you know it's nothing more than statistical phenomena. Now you changed your opinion and are now inline with the article in saying we don't know. So discussion over? >There's no underlying theory of mind here. There's a lot of opinion and belief .. mainly in emergent behaviour or properties of scale. But again this is all negated by the experts claiming they don't know what's going on. And your statement is in direct opposition with your previous claim that it's only statistical phenomena. >I admit, what this cycle of GPT and LLMs do is pretty bloody impressive. I don't see inductive reasoning, directed drive or any evidence of what I think intelligence is. I do see good approximations. But that winds up in "well it's a different kind of intelligence" which I find unsatisfying. There is evidence inductive reasoning. It's not consistent nor is it as complex as human induction but evidence of actual inductive reasoning exists. Plenty of examples of it. I can provide proof of this if you want... but it's quite obvious it's actually everywhere. >I totally get I do anything but define what intelligence is, and for a good reason: nobody knows yet. The claim cited by researchers in that article is "emergent abilities." Nobody tries to define what intelligence is. It's more of "I don't know what's going on but something is up" attitudes that I see. This is in stark contrast to your claim of "The only thing going on is statistical anomalies". >I certainly don't think animals inability to speak makes them "unintelligent" but there's a qualitative and quantitative difference between them and us, humans. And I continue to believe (and I stress believe, not have evidence or scientific proof) there are no signs of latent intelligence in what we're seeing. I don't think this claim was made in the article. The strongest claim that opposes what you're saying here is this, and I quote: “They’re indirect evidence that we are probably not that far off from AGI,” Goertzel said in March at a conference on deep learning at Florida Atlantic University. It's just speculation we may be close to something. I think the theme in your response is "we don't know" and it echoes the theme in the article so we are all in agreement here. Just note the claim of "we don't know" or we "don't understand" something that we artificially created from scratch is strictly much more profound then saying we definitely know it's all statistical parroting.