4 ms·

I would take the opposite opinion - we have to maintain a _critical_ mind. Otherwise, we're open to being taken advantage of by any smooth-talking charlatan (o

I would take the opposite opinion - we have to maintain a _critical_ mind. Otherwise, we're open to being taken advantage of by any smooth-talking charlatan (or LLM, but that's largely the same thing) that comes along. Constantly moving the goal posts with this incessant "but what IS intelligence, though?!?" gets us nowhere. By your own argument we can never define intelligence, so we can never actually discuss it. LLMs consistently and constantly fall down on tasks that we would not expect a human to fail at, but you and people like you insist we cannot use this as evidence because you refuse to accept any defined terms. I mean, remain as hopeful and uncritical as you want. But you're basically asking the rest of us "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?" and that's gonna go about as well for you as it typically does.

digging 3y ago
No, I don't see any of this as a response to my positions at all. I must not have expressed myself clearly enough. I'm not talking about getting scammed by SBF or whatever. I'm saying that there doesn't exist a definition of "thinking" that we can use to include or exclude LLMs from the group "beings that think". It's counterproductive to say they do or don't and is a distraction from useful conversation. To say I'm not being critical when I clearly said I don't think it's likely that LLMs think feels disingenuous and, frankly, uncritical. > By your own argument we can never define intelligence In no way does that extend from my argument. Intelligence and thinking are separate phenomena, and I didn't say "never".