5 ms·
I wonder if the rationalizations people come up with for why this isn't real intelligence will be as creative as ChatGPTs solution.
by resident423 5mo ago
I wonder if the rationalizations people come up with for why this isn't real intelligence will be as creative as ChatGPTs solution.
- walrus01 5mo agoFor one, everything its 'intelligence' knows about solving the problem is contained within the finite context window memory buffer size for the particular model and session. Unless the memory contents of the context window are being saved to storage and reloaded later, unlike a human, it won't "remember" that it solved the problem and save its work somewhere to be easily referenced later.
- resident423 5mo agoWhat your describing sounds more like the model is lacking awareness than lacking intelligence? Why does it need to know it solved the problem to be intelligent?
- walrus01 5mo agoWe say African Elephants are intelligent for a number of reasons, one of which is because they remember where sources of water are in very dry conditions, and can successfully navigate back to them across relatively large distances. An intelligent being that can't remember its own past is at a significant disadvantage compared to others that can, which is exactly one of the reasons why alzheimers patients often require full time caregivers.
- peteforde 5mo agoYou are confusing lack of intelligence with the presence of impairment.
- resident423 5mo agoThere's probably a limit to how intelligent something can be with no long term memory, but solving Erdos problems in 80 minutes is clearly not above it, and I think the true limit is probably much higher than that.
- jychang 5mo agoThere's humans that have memory issues, or full blown Anterograde amnesia.
- emp17344 5mo agoThere are humans who can’t read. That doesn’t mean Grammarly is “intelligent”. These things are tools - nothing more, nothing less.
- jychang 5mo agoThere's no structural difference in the brain between those who can read/write vs those who can't. It's not a distinction. Would you consider Socrates not intelligent since he was illiterate and had contempt for the written word? If you want to classify intelligence, you need to define it properly.
- bpodgursky 5mo agoAll modern harnesses write memory files for context later.
- charcircuit 5mo agoAs another commenter pointed out these models are being trained how to save and read context into files so denying them to use such an ability that they have just makes your claim tautological.
- in-silico 5mo agoFor one, everything humans' "intelligence" knows about solving the problem is contained within the finite brain size for the particular person and life. Unless the memory contents of the brain are being saved to storage and reloaded later, it won't "remember" that it solved the problem and save its work somewhere to be easily referenced in a later life.
- techblueberry 5mo agoThis is real intelligence is the bear position, so I think it’s real intelligence.
- 0xBA5ED 5mo agoAnd how about the creative rationalizations about how statistical text generation is actual intelligence? As if there is any intent or motive behind the words that are generated or the ability to learn literally any new thing after it has been trained on human output?
- resident423 5mo agoSolving open math problems is strong evidence of intelligence so there's not really any need for rationalization? I don't understand why intelligence would require intent or motive? Isn't intent just the behaviour of making a specific thing happen rather than other things?
- x3ro 5mo agoI'm curious, do you think that this also applies to stable diffusion? Are these models "creative" too?
- famouswaffles 5mo agoYeah? Those models are creative.
- resident423 5mo agoI haven't used stable diffusion enough to have a strong opinion on it. But my thinking is LLMs have only recently started contributing novel solutions to problems, so maybe there is some threshold above which there's less sloppy remixing of training data and more ability to form novel insights, and image generators haven't crossed this line yet.
- 0xBA5ED 5mo agoThe LLM did not solve the problem.
- baxtr 5mo agoWho did then?
- tomlockwood 5mo agoI think one day the VCs will have given the monkeys on typewriters enough money that these kinds of comments can be generated without human intervention.
- thesmtsolver2 5mo agoRemember when people thought multiplying numbers, remembering a large number of facts, and being good at rote calculations was intelligence? Some people think that multiplying numbers, remembering a large number of facts, and being good at calculations is intelligence. Most intelligent people do not think that. Eventually, we will arrive at the same conclusion for what LLMs are doing now.
- resident423 5mo agoRemember when people thought solving Erdos problems required intelligence? Is there anything an LLM could ever do that would cound as intelligence? Surely the trend has to break at some point, if so what would be the thing that crosses the line to into real intelligence?
- noosphr 5mo agoI've spend a good chunk of time formalising mathematics. Doing formalized mathematics is as intelligent as multiplying numbers together. The only reason why it's so hard now is that the standard notation is the equivalent of Roman numerals. When you start using a sane metalanguage, and not just augmrnted English, to do proofs you gain the same increase in capabilities as going from word equations to algebra.
- xxs 5mo ago>the standard notation is the equivalent of Roman numerals. But the Roman numerals are easy. I was able to use them before 1st grade and I can't touch any "standard notation" to this day.
- thesmtsolver2 5mo agoWhen will LLM folks realize that automated theorem provers have existed for decades and non-ML theorem provers have solved non-trivial Math problems tougher than this Erdos problem. Proposing and proving something like Gödel's theorem's definitely requires intelligence. Solving an already proposed problem is just crunching through a large search space.
- catcowcostume 5mo agoYou're really telling on yourself if you think LLM is intelligence
- famouswaffles 5mo agoNone of it is really from logical thought. The rationalizations don't make any sense, but they haven't for a while. It's an emotional response. Honestly, It's to be expected.
- threethirtytwo 5mo agoIt's because HN is not really full of smart people. It's full of people who think they're smart and take pride in that idea that they're pretty intelligent. ChatGPT equalizes intelligence. And that is an attack on their identity. It also exposes their ACTUAL intelligence which is to say most of HN is not too smart.
- bsza 5mo ago> ChatGPT equalizes intelligence Yes, I love living in communism too. Imagine if you had to pay money for it or something. The wealthiest people would get unrestricted access to intelligence while the poor none. And the people in the middle would eventually find themselves unable to function without a product they can no longer afford. Chilling, huh? Good thing humans are known for sharing in the benefits of technological progress equally. /s
- simianwords 5mo agowhat? the post is literally titled "Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem". stop spreading FUD about unaffordability
- bsza 5mo agoThey used ChatGPT Pro to solve it. Over 50% of people in the world couldn't afford ChatGPT Pro ($200/mo) even if they spent more than half of their income on it. [1] What was that about "spreading FUD about unaffordability"? [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-living-with-less-than-upper-middle-income-poverty-line https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-living-with-less-th...
- otabdeveloper3 5mo ago[dead]
- bsder 5mo ago<edit> My mistake. Responded to a bot but can't delete now. Sorry. <edit>
- resident423 5mo agoNo, but I'm interested to know what it is?
- vatsachak 5mo agoWell it still gets easy problems wrong With real general intelligence you'd expect it to solve problems above a certain difficulty with a good clip
- pepa65 5mo agoThat "it" is a huge variety and range of things...
- chrishare 5mo agoLLMs are definitely intelligent - just not general like humans, and very very jagged (succeedingand failing in head-scratching ways).
- slashdave 5mo agoProving a negative is a pretty high bar. You also have the problem of defining "real intelligence", which I suspect you can't.
- famouswaffles 5mo agoIntelligence is Intelligence. It's intelligent because it does intelligent things. If someone feels the need to add a 'real' and 'fake' moniker to it so they can exclude the machine and make themselves feel better (or for whatever reason) then they are the one meant to be doing the defining, and to tell us how it can be tested for. If they can't, then there's no reason to pay attention to any of it. It's the equivalent of nonsensical rambling. At the end of the day, the semantic quibbling won't change anything.
- latexr 5mo ago> It's intelligent because it does intelligent things. Most people would consider someone who can calculate 56863*2446 instantly in their head to be intelligent. Does that mean pocket calculators are intelligent? The result is the same. > then they are the one meant to be doing the defining, and to tell us how it can be tested for. If they can't, then there's no reason to pay attention to any of it. That is the equivalent of responding to criticism with “can you do better?”. One does not need to be a chef (or even know how to cook) to know when food tastes foul. Similarly, one does not need to have a tight definition of “life” to say a dog is alive but a rock isn’t. Definitions evolve all the time when new information arises, and some (like “art”) we haven’t been able to pin down despite centuries of thinking about it.
- famouswaffles 5mo ago>Most people would consider someone who can calculate 56863*2446 instantly in their head to be intelligent. Does that mean pocket calculators are intelligent? The result is the same. If you wanted to insist a calculator wasn't intelligent and satisfy my conditions then you can. At the very least you can test for the sort of intelligence that is present in humans but absent from calculators and cleanly separate the two. These are very easy conditions if there is some actual real difference. >That is the equivalent of responding to criticism with “can you do better?”. One does not need to be a chef (or even know how to cook) to know when food tastes foul. No it's not, and this is a silly argument. Foul food tastes different. Sometimes it even looks different. You can test for it and satisfy my conditions. You come across a shiny piece of yellow metal that you think is gold. It looks like gold, feels like gold and tests like gold. Suddenly a strange fellow comes about insisting that it's not actually gold. No, apparently there is a 'fake' gold. You are intrigued so you ask him, "Alright, what exactly is fake gold, and how can I test or tell them apart ?". But this fellow is completely unable to answer either question. What would you say about him ? He's nothing more than a mad man rambling about a distinction he made up in his head. What I'm asking you to do is incredibly easy and basic with a real distinction. I'm not going to tell you to stop believing in your fake gold, but I am going to tell you I and no one else can be expected to take you seriously.