>That example might be just as well be exhibited by a lookup table, a lucky random output, a modified markov chain, a Chinese Box, a trivial small language mode

>That example might be just as well be exhibited by a lookup table, a lucky random output, a modified markov chain, a Chinese Box, a trivial small language model trained on the right corpus, etc. Basically No-one who argues LLMs are intelligent does so from the results of a single query. That is simply the example he used to demonstrate what he believes is an instance of reasoning. And If i said, show me the lookup table or random string generator or simple markov chain etc that would reply correctly to any question like that, would you be able to do so ? No. because you're hinging on random chance being your savior. If there's one property of Intelligence everybody can agree on, it's that it works better than chance. Small tangent but the Chinese room is a nonsensical thought experiment. Can you demonstrate which neuron/synapse/cell/atom etc "understands" English. No? then your brain is a "Chinese Room" >No. We project intelligence onto humans inductively by identifying our own experience as intelligence and assuming that other things that are almost identical to us are very likely to be working in the same way. Really? History would certainly seem to argue otherwise. Wonder why all those African slaves and Jews were missing this projection. Seems to me there isn't necessarily any logic to what properties we project on others. Leaving that aside. That's not what i was getting at. Why are we tested in schools? Why do IQ tests still exist today? Because we attempt to measure reasoning, intelligence and understanding through tests. The fact of the matter is that this is how we assess intelligence today. And I'm not sure why you brought up what people centuries or decades ago thought of intelligence but for as long as intelligence has been something to gatekeep (a very very long time), tests have been used to assess it even if the form and shape of these tests have changed over thousands of years. >At this point, we mostly can't yet rely on chatbots to fulfill roles that require interesting human intelligence. So? I'm not arguing about whether LLMs are Humans. How many animals can fulfill roles requiring "human intelligence" never mind "interesting" human intelligence (lol at the goalposts. I suppose when that bar is cleared, we'll move on to "very interesting" human intelligence and restart this conversation).