7 ms·

When are we going to stop defending LLM intelligence on the grounds that "some people are stupid too"? Human intelligence is not benchmarked by its lowest com

When are we going to stop defending LLM intelligence on the grounds that "some people are stupid too"? Human intelligence is not benchmarked by its lowest common denominators (just like how we don't judge LLM's on the basis of tiny 100M parameter models).

jacobsimon 2y ago
The paper linked here starts off by asking whether LLMs can “solve complex problems in ways that resemble human thinking.” Why would we try to answer that question without discussing how humans think?
- mrjin 2y ago
  Coz we simply don't understand how we understand, period.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    So we shouldn't discuss it or try to understand it at all?
    - mrjin 2y ago
      Where did you get that? You don't know you don't know. It's not going to sell if you literally say I don't know what we're doing...
      - ben_w 2y ago
        I'm a different person than you replied to, but I agree with them. Your previous reply was to: > Why would we try to answer that question without discussing how humans think? And by replying to that with > Coz we simply don't understand how we understand, period. Well, when we don't understand how we understand, that is exactly when we should be discussing how humans think. Or at least how we think we think. And the bat and a ball example relates to research about how we think we think. So yeah, your reply definitely comes across as saying the first half, "So we shouldn't discuss it", while finishing it with "period" also suggests "or try to understand it at all".
- mannykannot 2y ago
  > Why would we try to answer that question without discussing how humans think? The post you are replying to does not suggest that we should. If anything, it is suggesting the opposite - that we should be considering the full range of human abilities (or at least those that are effective in solving complex problems) when addressing the question you have quoted. I agree with most of what viraptor has said in this thread, but not in this particular case.
p-e-w 2y ago
When are we going to define what intelligence actually means, so these discussions can start making sense? 5 years ago, it was still common to read things like "AIs will never be as intelligent as mice, let alone humans", today, it's "sure, AIs are as intelligent as some humans, but not as intelligent as the right humans". Noticed how everyone dropped the Turing Test like a hot potato as the gold standard for intelligence, the moment it became apparent that LLMs were about to pass it? Try to find a recent high-profile article invoking the Turing Test. Crickets. The intellectual dishonesty is nauseating. The entire discussion is dominated by smart people who are scared shitless that AI is going to show them just how ordinary they are in the grand scheme of things.
- card_zero 2y ago
  Do we still have Turing Test competitions? Now that everybody's used to LLMs, and detecting their style, it might be interesting. I'm not sure the LLMs would do very well against humans who were experienced and alert.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    "detecting their style" is trivial only because people take the default output and run with it. You can significantly alter it if you want and it would be an obvious thing to do for such test. Right now the default output styles of public LLMs have no reason to try avoiding detection and is not trained to do it.
    - card_zero 2y ago
      I didn't exactly mean superficial style, but properties like creativity, liveliness, and consistency. I hesitate to say that these are things LLMs can't do, because I'll provoke somebody into telling me that they totally can, but weaknesses like this could be ways for human intuition to detect an LLM. It might have to be a long competition, because an unusual set of prompts (or training, even) is likely to initially impress the humans: time should be allowed for novelty to wear off.
Kiro 2y ago
Just because you're tired of hearing something doesn't make it less true. "When are we going to stop" is a manipulative argument.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
ben_w 2y ago
> Human intelligence is not benchmarked by its lowest common denominators (just like how we don't judge LLM's on the basis of tiny 100M parameter models). Indeed, but we do also catalogue our cognitive biases — kinda the human version of what are now called hallucinations when LLMs do them. (When Stable Diffusion does it, it's "oh god the fingers"). It's worth caring about both strengths and weaknesses.
fragmede 2y ago
Yes it is. Warning labels on products and laws aren't written with genius level people in mind, but the lowest common denominator. Tv politics is the way is it because of said lowest common denominator of intelligence. It's not some people are dumb too, most people are dumb in the wrong contexts, even you and I pre-coffee or sleep deprived or wasted drunk or high. IQ tests are averaged out so 100 is average intelligence, not the high point.

jacobsimon 2y ago

The paper linked here starts off by asking whether LLMs can “solve complex problems in ways that resemble human thinking.” Why would we try to answer that question without discussing how humans think?

mrjin 2y ago
Coz we simply don't understand how we understand, period.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  So we shouldn't discuss it or try to understand it at all?
  - mrjin 2y ago
    Where did you get that? You don't know you don't know. It's not going to sell if you literally say I don't know what we're doing...
    - ben_w 2y ago
      I'm a different person than you replied to, but I agree with them. Your previous reply was to: > Why would we try to answer that question without discussing how humans think? And by replying to that with > Coz we simply don't understand how we understand, period. Well, when we don't understand how we understand, that is exactly when we should be discussing how humans think. Or at least how we think we think. And the bat and a ball example relates to research about how we think we think. So yeah, your reply definitely comes across as saying the first half, "So we shouldn't discuss it", while finishing it with "period" also suggests "or try to understand it at all".
mannykannot 2y ago
> Why would we try to answer that question without discussing how humans think? The post you are replying to does not suggest that we should. If anything, it is suggesting the opposite - that we should be considering the full range of human abilities (or at least those that are effective in solving complex problems) when addressing the question you have quoted. I agree with most of what viraptor has said in this thread, but not in this particular case.

p-e-w 2y ago

When are we going to define what intelligence actually means, so these discussions can start making sense? 5 years ago, it was still common to read things like "AIs will never be as intelligent as mice, let alone humans", today, it's "sure, AIs are as intelligent as some humans, but not as intelligent as the right humans". Noticed how everyone dropped the Turing Test like a hot potato as the gold standard for intelligence, the moment it became apparent that LLMs were about to pass it? Try to find a recent high-profile article invoking the Turing Test. Crickets. The intellectual dishonesty is nauseating. The entire discussion is dominated by smart people who are scared shitless that AI is going to show them just how ordinary they are in the grand scheme of things.

card_zero 2y ago
Do we still have Turing Test competitions? Now that everybody's used to LLMs, and detecting their style, it might be interesting. I'm not sure the LLMs would do very well against humans who were experienced and alert.
- viraptor 2y ago
  "detecting their style" is trivial only because people take the default output and run with it. You can significantly alter it if you want and it would be an obvious thing to do for such test. Right now the default output styles of public LLMs have no reason to try avoiding detection and is not trained to do it.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    I didn't exactly mean superficial style, but properties like creativity, liveliness, and consistency. I hesitate to say that these are things LLMs can't do, because I'll provoke somebody into telling me that they totally can, but weaknesses like this could be ways for human intuition to detect an LLM. It might have to be a long competition, because an unusual set of prompts (or training, even) is likely to initially impress the humans: time should be allowed for novelty to wear off.

Kiro 2y ago

Just because you're tired of hearing something doesn't make it less true. "When are we going to stop" is a manipulative argument.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ben_w 2y ago

> Human intelligence is not benchmarked by its lowest common denominators (just like how we don't judge LLM's on the basis of tiny 100M parameter models). Indeed, but we do also catalogue our cognitive biases — kinda the human version of what are now called hallucinations when LLMs do them. (When Stable Diffusion does it, it's "oh god the fingers"). It's worth caring about both strengths and weaknesses.

fragmede 2y ago

Yes it is. Warning labels on products and laws aren't written with genius level people in mind, but the lowest common denominator. Tv politics is the way is it because of said lowest common denominator of intelligence. It's not some people are dumb too, most people are dumb in the wrong contexts, even you and I pre-coffee or sleep deprived or wasted drunk or high. IQ tests are averaged out so 100 is average intelligence, not the high point.