4 ms·

> I see statements like this a lot, and I find them unpersuasive because any meaningful definition of "intelligence" is not offered. What, exactly, is the prope

by dkdcio 1y ago

> I see statements like this a lot, and I find them unpersuasive because any meaningful definition of "intelligence" is not offered. What, exactly, is the property that humans (allegedly) have and LLMs (allegedly) lack, that allows one to be deemed "intelligent" and the other not? the ability for long-term planning and, more cogently, actually living in the real world where time passes

hackyhacky 1y ago
> the ability for long-term planning and, more cogently, actually living in the real world where time passes 1. LLMs seem to be able to plan just fine. 2. LLMs clearly cannot be "actually living" but I fail to see how that's related to intelligence per se.
- aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
  Is making a list the act of planning?
  - hackyhacky 1y ago
    > Is making a list the act of planning? Depends on the content of the list. A list of the names of the seven dwarfs: no, not an act of planning. A list of steps necessary to build a web site: yes, an act of planning.
- dkdcio 1y ago
  if it’s not actually living it’s not making intelligent decisions. if I make a grocery list, and go to my store, and the store isn’t there, what do I do? I make an intelligent decision about what to do next (probably investigating wtf happened, then going to the second nearest store) my genuine question is how does a LLM handle that situation? and as you point out, it’s an absurd comparison
  - hackyhacky 1y ago
    So your definition of "living" means going to the grocery store? If you want to know how an LLM would handle that situation, why don't you ask it?
    - dkdcio 1y ago
      to answer your first question, no, that is not what I’m saying. for your second question, you’re entirely missing the point of mine a LLM cannot actually be intelligent if it cannot operate in a temporal context ;)
      - hackyhacky 1y ago
        I agree that I am missing your point. Can you please clarify? > a LLM cannot actually be intelligent if it cannot operate in a temporal context ;) When I have a conversation with an LLM, that conversation happens in time. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The conversation can refer to earlier parts of the conversation. How is that not a "temporal context"? Furthermore, can you explain why a temporal context is necessary for intelligence? For example, if a human being could download their entire brain into a computer and exist there, as if they were an LLM, would they cease to be intelligent, in your view?
        dkdcio 1y ago
        > It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The conversation can refer to earlier parts of the conversation. How is that not a "temporal context"? This is not what I mean for a few reasons: 1. This context literally has limits; we'll get back to the grocery store 2. This is a point-in-time conversation On the latter point, that is, you can have the same conversation tomorrow. The LLM has not "learned" anything, it has not adapted in any way. Yes, you are experiencing time, and the conversation is happening over time, but the LLM is not experiencing nor aware of time and is not intelligently adapting to it. Yes, they get trained and "updated" in that way, it's not the same thing. If you don't respond for an hour, then do, the LLM is not aware of that unless its system injects a "datetime.now()" somewhere in the prompt. Point of this being: an LLM is not an adaptable system. Now you can play the "What if?" game ad ininfinitum -- make it aware of the current time, current location, etc. etc. Hence my grocery store example. If I go out into the real world, I experience real things, and I make intelligence decisions based off those experiences. An LLM cannot do that, just full stop. And again, you can go "well what if I put the LLM in a robot body, and give it a system, then it can go grocery shopping". And only at this point are we kinda-sorta-close to having a discussion about intelligence. If this mythical creature can go to the grocery store, notice it's not there, look up what happened, maybe ask some friends who live in the same city if they know, maybe make some connection months later to some news article...a LLM or system we build on an LLM cannot do this. It cannot go into the store and think "ya know, if I buy all this ice cream and eat it, that could be bad" and connect it to the million other things a real person is doing and considering in their day to day life The actual world is practically infinitely complex. Talking about "a LLM writing a list is planning and that shows intelligence" is a frighening attenuation of intelligence in the world world to anthropomorphization to a very high degree. Reframing as "intelligence needs to be able to adapt to the world around it over time" is a much better starting point IMO
- Applejinx 1y ago
  No, they're echoing previous examples of people planning, by framing prompts and recursively designed prompts to incorporate what, in fairness, is a large database including the text of people planning. It still matters that there's nobody in there. You're figuring out better ways to tap into the history of language-users having represented planning in language. As such, this seems a brittle way to represent 'planning'.
  - hackyhacky 1y ago
    > they're echoing previous examples of people planning Isn't "echoing previous examples of X" the meaning of learning? If I learn, for example, calculus, or C++, or oil painting, aren't I just echoing pieces of math, code, or art that I've experienced elsewhere, but arranged into new patterns? Can't we say that the LLM "learned" planning, just as we can say that a person learned planning? I fail to see the distinction between "echo of examples of plans" in an LLM is any less authentic than a human being making similar echos in their own plans.
- 1659447091 1y ago
  > 2. LLMs clearly cannot be "actually living" but I fail to see how that's related to intelligence per se. Ive found 'Triarchic theory of intelligence' [0] to be helpful here. It's a much more rounded approach to human intelligence that, imo, is closer to what people are trying to get at during these types of 'AI vs human intelligence' discussions. The full encompassing of human Intelligence is not something that can simply be chalked up to some set of measurements -- nor is it about a soul or whatever. If you want to say LLMs are good at a particular sets of test measurements, then okay say that. But thats not equivalent to human intelligence, it only represents a tiny measurable subset that happens to be a part of the whole [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchic_theory_of_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchic_theory_of_intelligen...
  - dkdcio 1y ago
    jfc this is what I’ve been looking for, thank you. I’m coming from a more systems theory perspective this meshes well with
libraryofbabel 1y ago
> actually living in the real world where time passes sure, but it feels like this is just looking at what distinguishes humans from LLMs and calling that “intelligence.” I highlight this difference too when I talk about LLMs, but I don’t feel the need to follow up with “and that’s why they’re not really intelligent.”
- dkdcio 1y ago
  well the second part (implied above, I didn’t actually write it) is “and operate intelligently in that world”. talking about “intelligence” in some abstract form where “does this text output constitute intelligence” is hyper silly to me. the discussion should anchor on real-world consequences, not the endless hypotheticals we end up with in these discussions
iluvlawyering 1y ago
Human's are conscious beings. What kind of conscious beings are humans? Beings with eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, and mind consciousness. That is the definition of intelligence.

by dkdcio 1y ago

hackyhacky 1y ago

> the ability for long-term planning and, more cogently, actually living in the real world where time passes 1. LLMs seem to be able to plan just fine. 2. LLMs clearly cannot be "actually living" but I fail to see how that's related to intelligence per se.

aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
Is making a list the act of planning?
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > Is making a list the act of planning? Depends on the content of the list. A list of the names of the seven dwarfs: no, not an act of planning. A list of steps necessary to build a web site: yes, an act of planning.
dkdcio 1y ago
if it’s not actually living it’s not making intelligent decisions. if I make a grocery list, and go to my store, and the store isn’t there, what do I do? I make an intelligent decision about what to do next (probably investigating wtf happened, then going to the second nearest store) my genuine question is how does a LLM handle that situation? and as you point out, it’s an absurd comparison
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  So your definition of "living" means going to the grocery store? If you want to know how an LLM would handle that situation, why don't you ask it?
  - dkdcio 1y ago
    to answer your first question, no, that is not what I’m saying. for your second question, you’re entirely missing the point of mine a LLM cannot actually be intelligent if it cannot operate in a temporal context ;)
    - hackyhacky 1y ago
      I agree that I am missing your point. Can you please clarify? > a LLM cannot actually be intelligent if it cannot operate in a temporal context ;) When I have a conversation with an LLM, that conversation happens in time. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The conversation can refer to earlier parts of the conversation. How is that not a "temporal context"? Furthermore, can you explain why a temporal context is necessary for intelligence? For example, if a human being could download their entire brain into a computer and exist there, as if they were an LLM, would they cease to be intelligent, in your view?
      - dkdcio 1y ago
        > It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The conversation can refer to earlier parts of the conversation. How is that not a "temporal context"? This is not what I mean for a few reasons: 1. This context literally has limits; we'll get back to the grocery store 2. This is a point-in-time conversation On the latter point, that is, you can have the same conversation tomorrow. The LLM has not "learned" anything, it has not adapted in any way. Yes, you are experiencing time, and the conversation is happening over time, but the LLM is not experiencing nor aware of time and is not intelligently adapting to it. Yes, they get trained and "updated" in that way, it's not the same thing. If you don't respond for an hour, then do, the LLM is not aware of that unless its system injects a "datetime.now()" somewhere in the prompt. Point of this being: an LLM is not an adaptable system. Now you can play the "What if?" game ad ininfinitum -- make it aware of the current time, current location, etc. etc. Hence my grocery store example. If I go out into the real world, I experience real things, and I make intelligence decisions based off those experiences. An LLM cannot do that, just full stop. And again, you can go "well what if I put the LLM in a robot body, and give it a system, then it can go grocery shopping". And only at this point are we kinda-sorta-close to having a discussion about intelligence. If this mythical creature can go to the grocery store, notice it's not there, look up what happened, maybe ask some friends who live in the same city if they know, maybe make some connection months later to some news article...a LLM or system we build on an LLM cannot do this. It cannot go into the store and think "ya know, if I buy all this ice cream and eat it, that could be bad" and connect it to the million other things a real person is doing and considering in their day to day life The actual world is practically infinitely complex. Talking about "a LLM writing a list is planning and that shows intelligence" is a frighening attenuation of intelligence in the world world to anthropomorphization to a very high degree. Reframing as "intelligence needs to be able to adapt to the world around it over time" is a much better starting point IMO
Applejinx 1y ago
No, they're echoing previous examples of people planning, by framing prompts and recursively designed prompts to incorporate what, in fairness, is a large database including the text of people planning. It still matters that there's nobody in there. You're figuring out better ways to tap into the history of language-users having represented planning in language. As such, this seems a brittle way to represent 'planning'.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > they're echoing previous examples of people planning Isn't "echoing previous examples of X" the meaning of learning? If I learn, for example, calculus, or C++, or oil painting, aren't I just echoing pieces of math, code, or art that I've experienced elsewhere, but arranged into new patterns? Can't we say that the LLM "learned" planning, just as we can say that a person learned planning? I fail to see the distinction between "echo of examples of plans" in an LLM is any less authentic than a human being making similar echos in their own plans.
1659447091 1y ago
> 2. LLMs clearly cannot be "actually living" but I fail to see how that's related to intelligence per se. Ive found 'Triarchic theory of intelligence' [0] to be helpful here. It's a much more rounded approach to human intelligence that, imo, is closer to what people are trying to get at during these types of 'AI vs human intelligence' discussions. The full encompassing of human Intelligence is not something that can simply be chalked up to some set of measurements -- nor is it about a soul or whatever. If you want to say LLMs are good at a particular sets of test measurements, then okay say that. But thats not equivalent to human intelligence, it only represents a tiny measurable subset that happens to be a part of the whole [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchic_theory_of_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchic_theory_of_intelligen...
- dkdcio 1y ago
  jfc this is what I’ve been looking for, thank you. I’m coming from a more systems theory perspective this meshes well with

libraryofbabel 1y ago

> actually living in the real world where time passes sure, but it feels like this is just looking at what distinguishes humans from LLMs and calling that “intelligence.” I highlight this difference too when I talk about LLMs, but I don’t feel the need to follow up with “and that’s why they’re not really intelligent.”

dkdcio 1y ago
well the second part (implied above, I didn’t actually write it) is “and operate intelligently in that world”. talking about “intelligence” in some abstract form where “does this text output constitute intelligence” is hyper silly to me. the discussion should anchor on real-world consequences, not the endless hypotheticals we end up with in these discussions

iluvlawyering 1y ago

Human's are conscious beings. What kind of conscious beings are humans? Beings with eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, and mind consciousness. That is the definition of intelligence.