> Intelligence is best measured by outcomes. How some entity is best able to manipulate its existence. I agree, although I think we humans have always been fai

> Intelligence is best measured by outcomes. How some entity is best able to manipulate its existence. I agree, although I think we humans have always been fairly bad at measuring intelligence in a way that truly appreciates all the complexity of it. The second part of that is also interesting and I would agree that is partly what makes these LLMs non-intelligent. The models do not really have "an existence" outside of the moment in which they are processing the context and producing output. > Intelligence can manifest in more than one way. An entirely mechanical system could be considered to have some level of "intelligence" I don't think I agree with this, or at least maybe I disagree with your definition of "intelligent". I believe that intelligence is heavily intertwined with biology and it exists is all manner of non-human creatures but I don't think I would call an entirely mechanical system "intelligent". Perhaps I would say it had "intelligent design". > Considering something intelligent or to have desires is not anthropomorphizing. I absolutely agree with this and I was not trying to imply that it was unique to humans. In fact I think we severely discount the amount of intelligence in non-human life forms all the time. I do think that ChatGPT possesses knowledge (as encoded in its weights) similar to a book, however unlike a book it also has a convenient and familiar interface that allows us to interact with this knowledge and form unique and novel results.