3 ms·

The "goalposts" are "moving" because now (unlike "mere years ago") we have real AI systems that are at least good enough to be seriously compared with human int

The "goalposts" are "moving" because now (unlike "mere years ago") we have real AI systems that are at least good enough to be seriously compared with human intelligence. We aren't vaguely speculating about what such an AI system might be like^[1]; we have the real thing now, and we can test its capabilities and see what it is like, what it's good at, and what it's not so good at. I think your use of the "goalposts" metaphor is telling. You see this as a team sport; you see yourself on the offensive, or the defensive, or whatever. Neither is conducive to a balanced, objective view of reality. Modern LLMs are shockingly "smart" in many ways, but if you think they're general intelligence in the same way humans have general intelligence (even disregarding agency, learning, etc.), that's a you problem. ^[1] I feel the implicit suggestion that there was some sort of broad consensus on this in the before-times is revisionism.

atleastoptimal 2y ago
> but if you think they're general intelligence in the same way humans have general intelligence (even disregarding agency, learning, etc.), that's a you problem. How is it a me problem? The idea of these models being intelligent is shared with a large number of researchers and engineers in the field. Such is clearly evident when you can ask o1 some random completely novel question about a hypothetical scenario and it gets the implication you're trying to make with it very well. I feel that simultaneously praising their abilities while claiming that they still aren't intelligent "in the way humans are" is just obscure semantic judo meant to stake an unfalsifiable claim. There will always be somewhat of a difference between large neural networks and human brains, but the significance of the difference is a subjective opinion depending on what you're focusing on. I think it's much more important to focus on the realm of "useful, hard things that are unique to intelligent systems and their ability to understand the world" is more important than "Possesses the special kind of intelligence that only humans have".
- caconym_ 2y ago
  > I think it's much more important to focus on the realm of "useful, hard things that are unique to intelligent systems and their ability to understand the world" is more important than "Possesses the special kind of intelligence that only humans have". This is a common strawman that appears in these conversations—you try to reframe my comments as if I'm claiming human intelligence runs on some kind of unfalsifiable magic that a machine could never replicate. Of course, I've suggested no such thing, nor have I suggested that AI systems aren't useful.

atleastoptimal 2y ago

> but if you think they're general intelligence in the same way humans have general intelligence (even disregarding agency, learning, etc.), that's a you problem. How is it a me problem? The idea of these models being intelligent is shared with a large number of researchers and engineers in the field. Such is clearly evident when you can ask o1 some random completely novel question about a hypothetical scenario and it gets the implication you're trying to make with it very well. I feel that simultaneously praising their abilities while claiming that they still aren't intelligent "in the way humans are" is just obscure semantic judo meant to stake an unfalsifiable claim. There will always be somewhat of a difference between large neural networks and human brains, but the significance of the difference is a subjective opinion depending on what you're focusing on. I think it's much more important to focus on the realm of "useful, hard things that are unique to intelligent systems and their ability to understand the world" is more important than "Possesses the special kind of intelligence that only humans have".

caconym_ 2y ago
> I think it's much more important to focus on the realm of "useful, hard things that are unique to intelligent systems and their ability to understand the world" is more important than "Possesses the special kind of intelligence that only humans have". This is a common strawman that appears in these conversations—you try to reframe my comments as if I'm claiming human intelligence runs on some kind of unfalsifiable magic that a machine could never replicate. Of course, I've suggested no such thing, nor have I suggested that AI systems aren't useful.