3 ms·
> Unless we're expecting that LLMs (or AIs) have an intelligence that is functionally identical to humans Actually, yes, that's exactly what we should be expec
by Veuxdo 3y ago
> Unless we're expecting that LLMs (or AIs) have an intelligence that is functionally identical to humans
Actually, yes, that's exactly what we should be expecting when being sold "artificial intelligence".
- _heimdall 3y agoIQ tests are designed and validated around measuring a fairly tight band of intelligence commonly seen in people though. If an actual AI has yet to match human intelligence, and once it has surpassed us, the test wouldn't be applicable. More importantly, it would be missing any intelligence an AI may develop that isn't extremely similar to what we have evolved. I don't think we can assume that an AI will develop exactly like we will, and I think many assume as much when it comes to whether AI will develop emotions that we would recognize.
- Veuxdo 3y agoBut what is non-human (or, really, non-animal) intelligence? I posit that there is no such thing, by definition. Computers have long been better than humans at certain tasks. That isn't "intelligence", though. If an AI can't do IQ tests, then it is per-se not intelligent. Find a different word.
- _heimdall 3y agoSo are you defining intelligence by what humans can do? Meaning intelligence is pegged against what we evolved for so anything deviating from that is unintelligent by definition? If so, I can't really argue with that since its purely semantics. I don't know the point of defining intelligence there at that point though, and it risks diverting the moral and ethical concerns of AI development by falling into a semantic debate. We could make a new word for non-human intelligence, but what does that solve?