5 ms·

Same goes for most animals and humans, the vast majority of the time. We expect consistent savant level performance or it’s not “AGI” if humans were good at ac

• lukan 1y ago
  Partly true, but in my experience - no LLM has shown any understanding of the problem space all of the time.
  • K0balt 1y ago
    If we applied the same standards to people… As a sounding board and source of generally useful information, even my small locally hosted models generally outperform a substantial slice of the population. We all know people we would not ask anything that mattered, because their ideas and opinions are typically not insightful or informative. Conversing with a 24b model is likely to have higher utility. Do these people then not exhibit “general intelligence”? I really think we generally accept pattern matching and next-token ramblings, hallucinations, and rampant failures of reasoning in stride from people, while applying a much, much higher bar to LLMs. To me this makes no sense, because LLMs are compilations of human culture and their only functionality is to replicate human behavior. I think on average they do a pretty good job vs a random sampling of people, most of the time. I guess we see this IRL when we internally label some people as “NPC’s”.
    • lukan 1y ago
      "As a sounding board and source of generally useful information, even my small locally hosted models generally outperform a substantial slice of the population." So does my local copy of Wikipedia. But the lines do get blurry and many real humans indeed seem no more than stochastical parrots pretending understanding.