3 ms·

Does human reasoning survive that test? My reasoning for example is roboust to some extent but you can easily confuse me with appropriately (or innapriately) wo

• d4mi3n 2y ago
  Not disagreeing with you, but a point to consider for reasoning is that we consider it a key cornerstone of sapience and sentience. I think one could argue that a LLM could be considered sapient (able to solve problems) in a general sense, but probably not sentient (able to sustain undifferentiated consciousness, continue to absorb and apply information, etc). Part of the difficulty of these conversations, though, is many of these definitions were made before our math was advanced enough to approximate any of these criteria. We humans have also been notorious for excluding other things that could be considered sapience (e.g. elephants, dolphins, corvids, etc). In all cases, I think this is going to be a difficult topic to find consensus on until we better understand how our biology results in the emergent properties of our own sapience.
• ziofill 2y ago
  I see what you are saying. I guess it all depends on how complex one makes that test. But arguably vanilla LLMs (0-shot, no CoT, no rewrite memory) are much worse than humans at this.