4 ms·

I don’t understand the argument “AI is just XYZ mechanism, therefore it cannot be intelligent”. Does the mechanism really disqualify it from intelligence if be

I don’t understand the argument “AI is just XYZ mechanism, therefore it cannot be intelligent”. Does the mechanism really disqualify it from intelligence if behaviorally, you cannot distinguish it from “real” intelligence? I’m not saying that LLMs have certainly surpassed the “cannot distinguish from real intelligence” threshold, but saying there’s not even a little bit of intelligence in a system that can solve more complex math problems than I can seems like a stretch.

lupusreal 1y ago
What it really boils down to is "the machine doesn't have a soul". Just an unfalsifiable and ultimately meaningless objection.
- tonkinai 1y ago
  Maybe the soul is not as mysterios as we think it is?
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    There is no empirical test for souls.
- skissane 1y ago
  Maybe panpsychism is true and the machine actually does have a soul, because all machines have souls, even your lawnmower. But possibly the soul of a machine running a frontier AI is a bit closer to a human soul than your lawnmower’s soul is.
  - sfink 1y ago
    By that logic, Larry Ellison would have a soul. You've disproven panpsychism! Congratulations!
- gitremote 1y ago
  Incorrect. Vertebrate animal brains update their neural connections when interacting with the environment. LLMs don't do that. Their model weights are frozen for every release.
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    As I understand it, octopuses have their reasoning and intelligence essentially baked into them at birth, shaped by evolution, and do relatively little learning during life because their lives are so short. Very intelligent, obviously, but very unlike people.
  - pizza 1y ago
    But why can’t I then just say, actually, you need to relocate the analogy components; activations are their neural connections, the text is their environment, the weights are fixed just like our DNA is, etc.
shakna 1y ago
Scientifically, intelligence requires organizational complexity. And has for about a hundred years. That does actually disqualify some mechanisms from counting as intelligent, as the behaviour cannot reach that threshold. We might change the definition - science adapts to the evidence, but right now there are major hurdles to overcome before such mechanisms can be considered intelligent.
- Eisenstein 1y ago
  What is the scientific definition of intelligence? I assume that is it is comprehensive, internally consistent, and that it fits all of the things that are obviously intelligent and excludes the things which are obviously not intelligent. Of course being scientific I assume it is also falsifiable.
withinboredom 1y ago
It can’t learn or think unless prompted, then it is given a very small slice of time to respond and then it stops. Forever. Any past conversations are never “thought” of again. It has no intelligence. Intelligence implies thinking and it isn’t doing that. It’s not notifying you at 3am to say “oh hey, remember that thing we were talking about. I think I have a better solution!” No. It isn’t thinking. It doesn’t understand.
- 0xCMP 1y ago
  Just because it's not independent and autonomous does not mean it could not be intelligent. If existing humans minds could be stopped/started without damage, copied perfectly, and had their memory state modified at-will would that make us not intelligent?
  - dgfitz 1y ago
    > Just because it's not independent and autonomous does not mean it could not be intelligent. So to rephrase: it’s not independent or autonomous. But it can still be intelligent. This is probably a good time to point out that trees are independent and autonomous. So we can conclude that LLMs are possibly as intelligent as trees. Super duper. > If existing humans minds could be stopped/started without damage, copied perfectly, and had their memory state modified at-will would that make us not intelligent? To rephrase: if you take something already agreed to as intelligent, and changed it, is it still intelligent? The answer is, no damn clue. These are worse than weak arguments, there is no thesis.
    - hatthew 1y ago
      The thesis is that "intelligence" and "independence/autonomy" are independent concepts. Deciding whether LLMs have independence/autonomy does not help us decide if they are intelligent.
- fluidcruft 1y ago
  It sounds like you are saying the only difference is that human stimulus streams don't shut on and off? If you were put into a medically induced coma, you probably shouldn't be consider intelligent either.
8note 1y ago
i dont see the need to focus on "intelligent" compared to "it can solve these problems well, and cant solve these other problems" whats the benefit of calling something "intelligent" ?
- hatthew 1y ago
  Strongly agree with this. When we were further from AGI, many people imagined that there is a single concept of AGI that would be obvious when we reached it. But now, we're close enough to AGI for most people to realize that we don't know where it is. Most people agree we're at least moving more towards it than away form it, but nobody knows where it is, and we're still too focused on finding it than making useful things.
stickfigure 1y ago
> if behaviorally, you cannot distinguish it from “real” intelligence? Current LLMs are a long way from there. You may think "sure seems like it passes the Turing test to me!" but they all fail if you carry on a conversation long enough. AIs need some equivalent of neuroplasticity and as of yet they do not have it.
- PxldLtd 1y ago
  This is what I think is the next evolution of these models. Our brains are made up of many different types of neurones all interspersed with local regions made up of specific types. From my understanding most approaches to tensors don't integrate these different neuronal models at the node level; it's usually by feeding several disparate models data and combining an end result. Being able to reshape the underlying model and have varying tensor types that can migrate or have a lifetime seems exciting to me.

lupusreal 1y ago

What it really boils down to is "the machine doesn't have a soul". Just an unfalsifiable and ultimately meaningless objection.

tonkinai 1y ago
Maybe the soul is not as mysterios as we think it is?
- lupusreal 1y ago
  There is no empirical test for souls.
skissane 1y ago
Maybe panpsychism is true and the machine actually does have a soul, because all machines have souls, even your lawnmower. But possibly the soul of a machine running a frontier AI is a bit closer to a human soul than your lawnmower’s soul is.
- sfink 1y ago
  By that logic, Larry Ellison would have a soul. You've disproven panpsychism! Congratulations!
gitremote 1y ago
Incorrect. Vertebrate animal brains update their neural connections when interacting with the environment. LLMs don't do that. Their model weights are frozen for every release.
- lupusreal 1y ago
  As I understand it, octopuses have their reasoning and intelligence essentially baked into them at birth, shaped by evolution, and do relatively little learning during life because their lives are so short. Very intelligent, obviously, but very unlike people.
- pizza 1y ago
  But why can’t I then just say, actually, you need to relocate the analogy components; activations are their neural connections, the text is their environment, the weights are fixed just like our DNA is, etc.

shakna 1y ago

Scientifically, intelligence requires organizational complexity. And has for about a hundred years. That does actually disqualify some mechanisms from counting as intelligent, as the behaviour cannot reach that threshold. We might change the definition - science adapts to the evidence, but right now there are major hurdles to overcome before such mechanisms can be considered intelligent.

Eisenstein 1y ago
What is the scientific definition of intelligence? I assume that is it is comprehensive, internally consistent, and that it fits all of the things that are obviously intelligent and excludes the things which are obviously not intelligent. Of course being scientific I assume it is also falsifiable.

withinboredom 1y ago

It can’t learn or think unless prompted, then it is given a very small slice of time to respond and then it stops. Forever. Any past conversations are never “thought” of again. It has no intelligence. Intelligence implies thinking and it isn’t doing that. It’s not notifying you at 3am to say “oh hey, remember that thing we were talking about. I think I have a better solution!” No. It isn’t thinking. It doesn’t understand.

0xCMP 1y ago
Just because it's not independent and autonomous does not mean it could not be intelligent. If existing humans minds could be stopped/started without damage, copied perfectly, and had their memory state modified at-will would that make us not intelligent?
- dgfitz 1y ago
  > Just because it's not independent and autonomous does not mean it could not be intelligent. So to rephrase: it’s not independent or autonomous. But it can still be intelligent. This is probably a good time to point out that trees are independent and autonomous. So we can conclude that LLMs are possibly as intelligent as trees. Super duper. > If existing humans minds could be stopped/started without damage, copied perfectly, and had their memory state modified at-will would that make us not intelligent? To rephrase: if you take something already agreed to as intelligent, and changed it, is it still intelligent? The answer is, no damn clue. These are worse than weak arguments, there is no thesis.
  - hatthew 1y ago
    The thesis is that "intelligence" and "independence/autonomy" are independent concepts. Deciding whether LLMs have independence/autonomy does not help us decide if they are intelligent.
fluidcruft 1y ago
It sounds like you are saying the only difference is that human stimulus streams don't shut on and off? If you were put into a medically induced coma, you probably shouldn't be consider intelligent either.

8note 1y ago

i dont see the need to focus on "intelligent" compared to "it can solve these problems well, and cant solve these other problems" whats the benefit of calling something "intelligent" ?

hatthew 1y ago
Strongly agree with this. When we were further from AGI, many people imagined that there is a single concept of AGI that would be obvious when we reached it. But now, we're close enough to AGI for most people to realize that we don't know where it is. Most people agree we're at least moving more towards it than away form it, but nobody knows where it is, and we're still too focused on finding it than making useful things.

stickfigure 1y ago

> if behaviorally, you cannot distinguish it from “real” intelligence? Current LLMs are a long way from there. You may think "sure seems like it passes the Turing test to me!" but they all fail if you carry on a conversation long enough. AIs need some equivalent of neuroplasticity and as of yet they do not have it.

PxldLtd 1y ago
This is what I think is the next evolution of these models. Our brains are made up of many different types of neurones all interspersed with local regions made up of specific types. From my understanding most approaches to tensors don't integrate these different neuronal models at the node level; it's usually by feeding several disparate models data and combining an end result. Being able to reshape the underlying model and have varying tensor types that can migrate or have a lifetime seems exciting to me.