3 ms·
I did not express my opinion or "worldview." I was simply responding to this: > exclude LLMs with CoT from the category of intelligent systems with certainty
by buttercraft 2mo ago
I did not express my opinion or "worldview." I was simply responding to this:
> exclude LLMs with CoT from the category of intelligent systems with certainty
- red75prime 2mo agoWhy do you think that intelligence of a Turing-complete system trained on human data can be likened to a Russell's teapot? At least, don't you think that the recent mathematical results of LLMs are a bit like a glimpse of something teapot-shaped in the orbit? (which makes it not a Russell's teapot, which. by definition, can't be observed). To me, it's an expected progression of ANNs' approximation of human cognitive processes. The universal approximation theorem guaranties the existence of such ANNs barring the super-Turing or quantum superiority of the brain.
- buttercraft 2mo ago> Why do you think that intelligence of a Turing-complete system trained on human data can be likened to a Russell's teapot? I don't? You are presenting opinions as if they are mine, but they are not.
- red75prime 2mo agoI'm trying to understand what's going on in the head of people who are certain that LLMs can't be intelligent. And it proves to be a daunting task. Have you tried to reflect on your certainty? Where it comes from?