4 ms·
> You and robotresearcher have still avoided answering this question. I have repeatedly explicitly denied the meaningfulness of the question. Understanding is
by robotresearcher 1y ago
> You and robotresearcher have still avoided answering this question.
I have repeatedly explicitly denied the meaningfulness of the question. Understanding is a property ascribed by an observer, not possessed by a system.
You may not agree, but you can’t maintain that I’m avoiding that question. It does not have an answer that matters; that is my specific claim.
You can say a toaster understands toasting or you can not. There is literally nothing at stake there.
- godelski 1y agoYou said the LLMs are intelligent because they do tasks. But the claim is inconsistent with the toaster example. If a toaster isn't intelligent because I have to give it bread and press the button to start then how's that any different from giving an LLM a prompt and pressing the button to start? It's never been about the toaster. You're avoiding answering the question. I don't believe you're dumb, so don't act the part. I'm not buying it.
- robotresearcher 1y agoI didn’t describe anything as intelligent or not intelligent. I’ll bow out now. Not fun to be ascribed views I don’t have, despite trying to be as clear as I can.