4 ms·

Do you have a definition of "smart" such that there is something an AI could do to prove itself intelligent? Or are you just defining "fast" as something only

Do you have a definition of "smart" such that there is something an AI could do to prove itself intelligent? Or are you just defining "fast" as something only horses can do, and considering that a useful insight about cars?

slopinthebag 4mo ago
A future AI may be intelligent, but LLMs are clearly not. They have no agency, no ability to reason, and no world model. The most effective way to use them is to treat them as next token prediction machines, because that’s what they are. edit: downvotes but no rebuttals. feel free to show me where the agency, reasoning from first principles, world model etc exists. or you can ask an llm and they'll tell you they don't have those.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- roelljr 4mo ago
  [flagged]
efreak 4mo ago
Long-term memory, for one. (reliving your entire life every time you do an action isn't memory). Creativity in new areas without training. Children at school are capable of "discovering" math solutions/methods that are known to others but hasn't been taught to them. There's nothing intelligent about a math processor, even if it's automated.
- handoflixue 4mo ago
  > Long-term memory, for one. Do you consider the protagonist of "Memento" to lack intelligence, then? > Children at school are capable of "discovering" math solutions/methods that are known to others but hasn't been taught to them. LLMs have already done that one: A chatbot’s result for the 80-year-old “unit distance” conjecture is the first AI proof that would likely be published in math’s top journal if humans had done it alone https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-just-solved-an-80-year-old-erdos-problem-and-mathematicians-are-amazed/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-just-solved-an... > Creativity in new areas without training. To my knowledge, not something that has ever been done by humans, but again, it depends entirely on how you actually define the goal posts. > There's nothing intelligent about a math processor, even if it's automated. There's nothing intelligent about a bag of cells, but here we are.
utopiah 4mo ago
My point was more about agency and anthropomorphization than the definition of intelligence, which is why I didn't just quote "smart" but rather "getting smart".

slopinthebag 4mo ago

A future AI may be intelligent, but LLMs are clearly not. They have no agency, no ability to reason, and no world model. The most effective way to use them is to treat them as next token prediction machines, because that’s what they are. edit: downvotes but no rebuttals. feel free to show me where the agency, reasoning from first principles, world model etc exists. or you can ask an llm and they'll tell you they don't have those.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
roelljr 4mo ago
[flagged]

efreak 4mo ago

Long-term memory, for one. (reliving your entire life every time you do an action isn't memory). Creativity in new areas without training. Children at school are capable of "discovering" math solutions/methods that are known to others but hasn't been taught to them. There's nothing intelligent about a math processor, even if it's automated.

handoflixue 4mo ago
> Long-term memory, for one. Do you consider the protagonist of "Memento" to lack intelligence, then? > Children at school are capable of "discovering" math solutions/methods that are known to others but hasn't been taught to them. LLMs have already done that one: A chatbot’s result for the 80-year-old “unit distance” conjecture is the first AI proof that would likely be published in math’s top journal if humans had done it alone https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-just-solved-an-80-year-old-erdos-problem-and-mathematicians-are-amazed/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-just-solved-an... > Creativity in new areas without training. To my knowledge, not something that has ever been done by humans, but again, it depends entirely on how you actually define the goal posts. > There's nothing intelligent about a math processor, even if it's automated. There's nothing intelligent about a bag of cells, but here we are.

utopiah 4mo ago

My point was more about agency and anthropomorphization than the definition of intelligence, which is why I didn't just quote "smart" but rather "getting smart".