6 ms·
It is impossible to accurately imitate the action of intelligent beings without being intelligent. To believe otherwise is to believe that intelligence is a va
by empath75 8mo ago
It is impossible to accurately imitate the action of intelligent beings without being intelligent. To believe otherwise is to believe that intelligence is a vacuous property.
- qsera 8mo ago>It is impossible to accurately imitate the action of intelligent beings without being intelligent. Wait what? So a robot who is accurately copying the actions of an intelligent human, is intelligent?
- empath75 8mo agoThat was probably phrased poorly. If a robot can independently accurately do what an intelligent person would do when placed in a novel situation, then yes, I would say it is intelligent. If it's just basically being a puppet, then no. You tell me what claude code is more like, a puppet, or a person?
- qsera 8mo agoIt is neither puppet or a person. It is a computer program.
- throw310822 7mo agoAs much as a bundle of an mp3 decoder and a terabyte of mp3 music are "just a program".
- UltraSane 8mo agoHow can you distinguish intelligence form a sufficiently accurate imitation of intelligence?
- slopinthebag 8mo agoBy "sufficiently accurate" do you mean identical? Because if so, it's not an imitation of intelligence at all, and the question is thus nonsensical.
- UltraSane 8mo ago"it's not an imitation of intelligence at all" But that is the key insight, how can you tell when an imitation of intelligence becomes the real thing?
- qsera 7mo agoWhen it stops hallucinating without explicit checks for that!
- empath75 7mo agoMaking mistakes does not make people unintelligent.
- qsera 7mo agoPeople don't hallucinate. That is they can pretty reliably assess if they know or don't know something.
- UltraSane 7mo agoSome people can reliably assess what the know, others cannot
- empath75 7mo agoYour comment is a perfect example of a human hallucinating something and not knowing they are wrong about it. People are confidently wrong about things _all the time_.
- throw310822 7mo ago
- slopinthebag 8mo agoAn unintelligent device can accurately imitate the action of intelligent beings within a given scope, in the same way an actor can accurately imitate the action of a fictional character in a given scope (the stage or camera) without actually being that character. If the idea is that something cannot accurately replicate the entirety of intelligence without being intelligent itself, then perhaps. But that isn't really what people talk about with LLMs given their obvious limitations.
- xlii 8mo agoSo the actors who portrait great thinkers are great thinkers?
- bonoboTP 8mo agoNo, actors recite a pre-written script. But scriptwriters do have to be great thinkers in order to know what the great thinker would actually say.
- jeremyjh 8mo agoWhich is why so many portrayals are unconvincing.
- kqr 7mo agoI suppose they really only have to be good at knowing what sort of thing the audience would believe a great thinker would say. As long as the audience does not consist of great thinkers they also cannot know for sure what a great thinker would say.
- bonoboTP 7mo agoThat's true for unverifiable "talk professions" where there is no grounding and it's all self-referential navel-gazing chatter. But LLMs are already beyond that in writing code that passes actual tests, proving theorems that are check able with formal methods etc. The people who still say LLMs are just parrots in 2026 will just keep saying this no matter what, so I don't think it makes sense to argue this point further.
- qsera 7mo agoNo no, parrots are truly intelligent.