3 ms·
I try to avoid calling LLMs intelligent when unnecessary, but it runs into the fundamental problem that they are intelligent by any common-sense definition of t
by SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
I try to avoid calling LLMs intelligent when unnecessary, but it runs into the fundamental problem that they are intelligent by any common-sense definition of the term. The only way to defend the thesis that they aren't is to retreat to esoteric post-2022 definitions of intelligence, which take into account this new phenomenon of a machine that can engage in medium-quality discussions on any topic under the sun but can't count reliably.
I don't have a WSJ subscription, but other coverage of this story (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/04/gemini-chatbot-google-jonathan-gavalas https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/04/gemini-ch...) makes it clear that Gemini's intelligence was precisely the problem in this case; a less intelligent chatbot would not have been able to create the detailed, immersive narrative the victim got trapped in.
- wat10000 8mo agoIt's interesting how the Turing Test was pretty widely accepted as a way to evaluate machine intelligence, and then quietly abandoned pretty much instantly once machines were able to pass it. I don't even necessarily think that was incorrect, but it's interesting how rapidly views changed. Dijkstra said, "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim." Well, we have some very fish-y submarines these days. But the point still holds. Rather than worry about whether these things qualify as "intelligent," look at their actual capabilities. That's what matters.
- sambapa 8mo agoAs far as I know, we haven't done any proper Turing Tests for LLMs. And if we did, they would surely fail them.
- OkayPhysicist 8mo agoDude, you're in a Turing test right now. Conservatively, 10% of comments on this site are LLM output. We're all conversing with robots.
- sambapa 8mo agoNope, you are!
- wat10000 8mo ago"Proper" may be doing some work here, but such a test was run last year and GPT-4.5 and LLaMa-3.1-405B both passed. Oddly, GPT-4.5 was judged as human significantly more often than chance. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674 https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674
- bryan0 8mo agoBasically the only reasonably proposed Turing test is the one defined in the Kurzweil-Kapor wager[0] which has never been attempted. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#Kurzweil%E2%80%93Kapor_wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#Kurzweil%E2%80%93K...
- pixl97 8mo agoWe will never prove AI is intelligent. We will only prove humans aren't.
- df2dfs 8mo agoAnd the machine came into existence all on its own did it? Another absolutely stupid comment. Do you people actually 'think' before posting, or, have you handed that off to LLMs entirely?
- pixl97 8mo agoI'm doubting you did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect >The AI effect refers to a phenomenon where either the definition of AI or the concept of intelligence is adjusted to exclude capabilities that AI systems have mastered Hence once AI reaches the point of human intelligence, by the AI effect, humans will stop being intelligent.