3 ms·

That's underestimating human intelligence. Even low-IQ humans can in principle learn how to use Lean to represent a multivariate system. It might take a while,

That's underestimating human intelligence. Even low-IQ humans can in principle learn how to use Lean to represent a multivariate system. It might take a while, but in principle their brain is capable of that feat. In contrast, no matter how long I sit down with ChatGPT or Gemini or whatnot, it won't be able to. Because they are not intelligent. It's a great achievement of the AI hype that the burden of proof has been reversed. Here I am, having to defend my claim that they are not intelligent. But the burden of proof should be on those claiming intelligence. The claim that earth is a sphere was extraordinary and needed convincing evidence. The claim that species have evolved through evolution was. But the claim that LLMs are intelligent is so self-evident that rejecting the idea needs evidence? That's upside-down!

card_zero 1y ago
IDK, they look intelligent, like the world looks flat.
- exe34 1y ago
  As opposed to most humans? Have you tried reasoning with somebody "just trying to do my job sir"?
1dom 1y ago
> Here I am, having to defend my claim that they are not intelligent. It's because all you've done is made a claim without any evidence. Someone pointed out a challenge that most claims about them not being intelligent can't submit any evidence that can't also be met by an LLM. But instead of submitting any evidence to support your claim, you descended into hyperbole about how hard done by you are being expected to support your claims. In science, it's okay to say we don't know. The amount of disagreement - even amongst smart people - about if LLMs are intelligent or not, suggest to me that we just don't have universally accepted research and definitions that are tight enough to decisively say. But you're talking not only like you _know_ the answer for sure, so much that you don't need to support it with evidence or credentials, because those who disagree are obviously just poor victims of the AI hype machine. Please make sure you pass your knowledge of your LLM discoveries onto the scientific community, you could change the world!
- teiferer 1y ago
  Did you read my post? The claim is "LLMs are intelligent". And instead if requiring evidence for that, apparently most folks (including you) are fine with just accepting that claim and require evidence if somebody questions this. That's what I'm doing. It's like a religion. "God exists" is the claim. Nobody needs to provide evidence that this is not the case. LLMs are intelligent" is the claim. Nobody needs to provide evidence against that. In either case, the burden of proof is with the one making the claim. > In science, it's okay to say we don't know But that's not what's happening. LLMs are called "AI". You know what the I stands for, right? It's not "artificial we-don't-know-if-intelligent".
  - 1dom 1y ago
    No you're not questioning it, you're making statements against it, without evidence, which is just as useless as the statement without evidence. Like I suggested, like the person you responded to suggested: when science tries to prove or disprove LLM intelligence it generally descends into disagreements about definition or evidence (neither of which you provided). The reason why no evidence was provided for the original LLMs are intelligent claim is because - if you read through this thread - you were the first to make that claim, and the counter claim. > But that's not what's happening. LLMs are called "AI". You know what the I stands for, right? It's not "artificial we-don't-know-if-intelligent". I don't know what you want me to say here - if you want to continue acting like there's some widely accepted and agreed on definition of intelligence that everyone who isn't you is an idiot for not knowing, then carry on. I don't have a reliable definition for intelligence. Like I said, if you do, please share your finding with science, you could settle some fairly big debates and change the world in a meaningful way.
    - teiferer 1y ago
      My claims: 1. LLMs are widely called "intelligent". Evidence for my claim: The term "artificial intelligence" that is used everywhere. It has its own TLD. 2. There is no evidence that this terminology is applicable. Questioning it faces some variant of "well do you have evidence to the contrary?". Evidence for my claim: This thread. You are welcome to disprove my claims, as in the scientific spirit that you say you uphold.
exe34 1y ago
> Even low-IQ humans can in principle learn how to use Lean to represent a multivariate system. That's an article of faith. In principle, elephants can fly at least once.

card_zero 1y ago

IDK, they look intelligent, like the world looks flat.

exe34 1y ago
As opposed to most humans? Have you tried reasoning with somebody "just trying to do my job sir"?

1dom 1y ago

> Here I am, having to defend my claim that they are not intelligent. It's because all you've done is made a claim without any evidence. Someone pointed out a challenge that most claims about them not being intelligent can't submit any evidence that can't also be met by an LLM. But instead of submitting any evidence to support your claim, you descended into hyperbole about how hard done by you are being expected to support your claims. In science, it's okay to say we don't know. The amount of disagreement - even amongst smart people - about if LLMs are intelligent or not, suggest to me that we just don't have universally accepted research and definitions that are tight enough to decisively say. But you're talking not only like you _know_ the answer for sure, so much that you don't need to support it with evidence or credentials, because those who disagree are obviously just poor victims of the AI hype machine. Please make sure you pass your knowledge of your LLM discoveries onto the scientific community, you could change the world!

teiferer 1y ago
Did you read my post? The claim is "LLMs are intelligent". And instead if requiring evidence for that, apparently most folks (including you) are fine with just accepting that claim and require evidence if somebody questions this. That's what I'm doing. It's like a religion. "God exists" is the claim. Nobody needs to provide evidence that this is not the case. LLMs are intelligent" is the claim. Nobody needs to provide evidence against that. In either case, the burden of proof is with the one making the claim. > In science, it's okay to say we don't know But that's not what's happening. LLMs are called "AI". You know what the I stands for, right? It's not "artificial we-don't-know-if-intelligent".
- 1dom 1y ago
  No you're not questioning it, you're making statements against it, without evidence, which is just as useless as the statement without evidence. Like I suggested, like the person you responded to suggested: when science tries to prove or disprove LLM intelligence it generally descends into disagreements about definition or evidence (neither of which you provided). The reason why no evidence was provided for the original LLMs are intelligent claim is because - if you read through this thread - you were the first to make that claim, and the counter claim. > But that's not what's happening. LLMs are called "AI". You know what the I stands for, right? It's not "artificial we-don't-know-if-intelligent". I don't know what you want me to say here - if you want to continue acting like there's some widely accepted and agreed on definition of intelligence that everyone who isn't you is an idiot for not knowing, then carry on. I don't have a reliable definition for intelligence. Like I said, if you do, please share your finding with science, you could settle some fairly big debates and change the world in a meaningful way.
  - teiferer 1y ago
    My claims: 1. LLMs are widely called "intelligent". Evidence for my claim: The term "artificial intelligence" that is used everywhere. It has its own TLD. 2. There is no evidence that this terminology is applicable. Questioning it faces some variant of "well do you have evidence to the contrary?". Evidence for my claim: This thread. You are welcome to disprove my claims, as in the scientific spirit that you say you uphold.

exe34 1y ago

> Even low-IQ humans can in principle learn how to use Lean to represent a multivariate system. That's an article of faith. In principle, elephants can fly at least once.