4 ms·

The article claims (without any evidence, argument or reason) that LLMs are not intelligent, then simply refuses to define intelligence. How do you know LLMs a

The article claims (without any evidence, argument or reason) that LLMs are not intelligent, then simply refuses to define intelligence. How do you know LLMs aren't intelligent, if you can't define what that means?

energy123 1y ago
It's strange seeing so many takes like this two weeks after LLMs won gold medals at IMO and IOI. The cognitive dissonance is going to be wild when it all comes to a head in two years.
- oytis 1y ago
  I've seen these claims, and Google even published the texts of the solutions, but it still didn't published the full log of interaction between the model and operator.
- aprilthird2021 1y ago
  IBM Watson won Jeopardy years ago, was it intelligent?
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    > Rather than being given questions, contestants are instead given general knowledge clues in the form of answers and they must identify the person, place, thing, or idea that the clue describes, phrasing each response in the form of a question. [0] Doesn't sound like a test of intelligence to me, so no. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy!
    - aprilthird2021 1y ago
      Why? Computers also won chess years ago, but they're not intelligent either? Why is winning a math competition intelligent but a trivia competition or a chess competition not intelligent?
      - perching_aix 1y ago
        I don't wish to join you in framing intelligence as a step function. I think winning a Go or a chess competition does demonstrate intelligence. And winning a math competition does even more so. I do not think a trivia competition like Jeopardy demonstrates intelligence much at all, however. Specifically because it reads like it's not about intelligence, but about knowledge: it tests for association and recall, not for performing complex logical transformations. This isn't to say I consider these completely independent. Most smart people are both knowledgeable and intelligent. It's just that they are distinct dimensions in my opinion. You wouldn't say something tastes bad because its texture feels weird in your mouth, would you?
        tjr 1y ago
        I might even think that a symbolic chess program is in some sense more intelligent than a modern LLM. It has a concrete model of the world it operates in along with representation what it can, cannot, and is trying to, do. When LLMs get the right answer, it seems more like... highly-optimized chance, rather than coming from any sort of factual knowledge.
        aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
        > I think winning a Go or a chess competition does demonstrate intelligence. Chess is a simple alfa beta pruned minmax seaech tree. If that's intelligent then a drone flight controller or a calculator is aswell. > association and recall, not for performing complex logical transformations. By that definition humans doing chess aren't as intelligent as a computer doing chess, since high level chess is heavily reliant on memory and recall of moves and progressions. So your definition falls appart.
        perching_aix 1y ago
        > So your definition falls apart. I did not share any definitions, only vague opinions. Not that I'd know what it means for a definition to "fall apart". And the specific bit you cite is barely even a vague opinion; it is my interpretation of the show "Jeopardy!" based on the Wiki article (I've never seen a single episode, wasn't really a thing where I'm from): > Specifically because it reads like it's about (...) knowledge: it tests for association and recall (...) Also: > By that definition humans doing chess aren't as intelligent as a computer doing chess, since high level chess is heavily reliant on memory and recall of moves and progressions. Yes, I did find this really quite disappointing and disillusioning when I first learned about it. A colleague of mine even straight up quit competitive chess over it.
krapp 1y ago
Why do critics of LLM intelligence need to provide a definition when people who believe LLMs are intelligent only take it on faith, not having such a definition of their own?
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > Why do critics of LLM intelligence need to provide a definition when people who believe LLMs are intelligent only take it on faith, not having such a definition of their own? Because advocates of LLMs don't use their alleged intelligence as a defense; but opponents of LLMs do use their alleged non-intelligence as an attack. Really, whether or not the machine is "intelligent", by whatever definition, shouldn't matter. What matters is whether it is a useful tool.
  - tjr 1y ago
    This seems reasonable. Much AI research has historically been about building computer systems to do things that otherwise require human intelligence to do. The question of "is the computer actually intelligent" has been more philosophical than practical, and many such practically useful computer systems have been developed, even before LLMs. On the other hand, one early researcher said something to the effect of, Researchers in physics look at the universe and wonder how it all works. Researchers in biology look at living organisms and wonder how they can be alive. Researchers in artificial intelligence wonder how software can be made to wonder such things. I feel like we are still way off from having a working solution there.
  - aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
    The entire argument is that thinking it's intelligent or a person makes us missuse the tool in dangerous ways. Not to make us feel better; but to not do stupid things with them. As a tool its useful yes, that is not the issue; - theyre used as phycologist and life coaches. - judges of policy and law documents - writers of life affecting computer systems. - Judges of job applications. - Sources of medical advice, - legal advisors - And increasingly as a thing to blame when any of above goes awry. If we think of llms as very good text writing tools, the responsibility to make "intelligent" decisions and more crucially take responsibility for those decisions remains on real people rather than dice. But if we think of them as intelligent humans, we making a fatal misjudgement.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  Despite its title, that section does not contain a definition of intelligence.

energy123 1y ago

It's strange seeing so many takes like this two weeks after LLMs won gold medals at IMO and IOI. The cognitive dissonance is going to be wild when it all comes to a head in two years.

oytis 1y ago
I've seen these claims, and Google even published the texts of the solutions, but it still didn't published the full log of interaction between the model and operator.
aprilthird2021 1y ago
IBM Watson won Jeopardy years ago, was it intelligent?
- perching_aix 1y ago
  > Rather than being given questions, contestants are instead given general knowledge clues in the form of answers and they must identify the person, place, thing, or idea that the clue describes, phrasing each response in the form of a question. [0] Doesn't sound like a test of intelligence to me, so no. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy!
  - aprilthird2021 1y ago
    Why? Computers also won chess years ago, but they're not intelligent either? Why is winning a math competition intelligent but a trivia competition or a chess competition not intelligent?
    - perching_aix 1y ago
      I don't wish to join you in framing intelligence as a step function. I think winning a Go or a chess competition does demonstrate intelligence. And winning a math competition does even more so. I do not think a trivia competition like Jeopardy demonstrates intelligence much at all, however. Specifically because it reads like it's not about intelligence, but about knowledge: it tests for association and recall, not for performing complex logical transformations. This isn't to say I consider these completely independent. Most smart people are both knowledgeable and intelligent. It's just that they are distinct dimensions in my opinion. You wouldn't say something tastes bad because its texture feels weird in your mouth, would you?
      - tjr 1y ago
        I might even think that a symbolic chess program is in some sense more intelligent than a modern LLM. It has a concrete model of the world it operates in along with representation what it can, cannot, and is trying to, do. When LLMs get the right answer, it seems more like... highly-optimized chance, rather than coming from any sort of factual knowledge.
      - aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
        > I think winning a Go or a chess competition does demonstrate intelligence. Chess is a simple alfa beta pruned minmax seaech tree. If that's intelligent then a drone flight controller or a calculator is aswell. > association and recall, not for performing complex logical transformations. By that definition humans doing chess aren't as intelligent as a computer doing chess, since high level chess is heavily reliant on memory and recall of moves and progressions. So your definition falls appart.
        perching_aix 1y ago
        > So your definition falls apart. I did not share any definitions, only vague opinions. Not that I'd know what it means for a definition to "fall apart". And the specific bit you cite is barely even a vague opinion; it is my interpretation of the show "Jeopardy!" based on the Wiki article (I've never seen a single episode, wasn't really a thing where I'm from): > Specifically because it reads like it's about (...) knowledge: it tests for association and recall (...) Also: > By that definition humans doing chess aren't as intelligent as a computer doing chess, since high level chess is heavily reliant on memory and recall of moves and progressions. Yes, I did find this really quite disappointing and disillusioning when I first learned about it. A colleague of mine even straight up quit competitive chess over it.

krapp 1y ago

Why do critics of LLM intelligence need to provide a definition when people who believe LLMs are intelligent only take it on faith, not having such a definition of their own?

hackyhacky 1y ago
> Why do critics of LLM intelligence need to provide a definition when people who believe LLMs are intelligent only take it on faith, not having such a definition of their own? Because advocates of LLMs don't use their alleged intelligence as a defense; but opponents of LLMs do use their alleged non-intelligence as an attack. Really, whether or not the machine is "intelligent", by whatever definition, shouldn't matter. What matters is whether it is a useful tool.
- tjr 1y ago
  This seems reasonable. Much AI research has historically been about building computer systems to do things that otherwise require human intelligence to do. The question of "is the computer actually intelligent" has been more philosophical than practical, and many such practically useful computer systems have been developed, even before LLMs. On the other hand, one early researcher said something to the effect of, Researchers in physics look at the universe and wonder how it all works. Researchers in biology look at living organisms and wonder how they can be alive. Researchers in artificial intelligence wonder how software can be made to wonder such things. I feel like we are still way off from having a working solution there.
- aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
  The entire argument is that thinking it's intelligent or a person makes us missuse the tool in dangerous ways. Not to make us feel better; but to not do stupid things with them. As a tool its useful yes, that is not the issue; - theyre used as phycologist and life coaches. - judges of policy and law documents - writers of life affecting computer systems. - Judges of job applications. - Sources of medical advice, - legal advisors - And increasingly as a thing to blame when any of above goes awry. If we think of llms as very good text writing tools, the responsibility to make "intelligent" decisions and more crucially take responsibility for those decisions remains on real people rather than dice. But if we think of them as intelligent humans, we making a fatal misjudgement.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

School-Cotton 1y ago
Despite its title, that section does not contain a definition of intelligence.