> it is my interpretation of the show "Jeopardy!" based on the Wiki article You are spot on though. I mostly wanted to argue that no decent distinction can be

> it is my interpretation of the show "Jeopardy!" based on the Wiki article You are spot on though. I mostly wanted to argue that no decent distinction can be made here. > I did find this really quite disappointing and disillusioning when I first learned about it ye... same here. --- I'm personally in the camp that "intelligence" is a human concept. A metric to compare humans. Applying it to computers makes us anthropomorphism computers and think of them as people. Thinking of LLMs as people makes us trust them with bad things. So we should call them impressive, fluent, fast, useful, good at tasks. Computers already beat us at most math, statistics, searching for information, spacial visualization, information recollection, lossless communication. LLMs just adds to that list, but does nothing new to make the word "intelligent" applicable. Even if we reach the AGI singularity; thinking of them as humans or using human terminology to describe them is a fatal error. (Destroying earth to make paperclips is arguably the least intelligent thing you could ever do.)