3 ms·

We couldn't agree on what intelligence means before ChatGPT happened. Now, agreement on the term seems even further away If performing well on an IQ test or pe

We couldn't agree on what intelligence means before ChatGPT happened. Now, agreement on the term seems even further away If performing well on an IQ test or performing at a high level on knowledge work is intelligence to you, these models are intelligent. If intelligence requires sentience for you, then ... well, I don't think we really agree what that is either, never mind how to measure it. But LLMs certainly don't have it right now But the consistent trend of the last couple decades (arguably since Turing's time) seems to be that any time a computer reaches our definition of intelligence we decide that that was a flawed definition

tshaddox 2mo ago
I don't think "intelligence" needs to carry all the intrigue and woo of related words like "consciousness" or "creative." If we just use "intelligence" to mean "the ability of a system to solve problems that are new to the system," that pretty much matches the dictionary definition and normal usage of the term. We don't need to touch messy questions like "is there something it's like to be a bat" to conclude that bats exhibit intelligence when they navigate long distances and hunt for food.
- svachalek 2mo ago
  I agree, but it's clear most people need a definition of intelligence that (1) they qualify for and (2) nothing/no one they don't like qualifies for. And they'll keep redefining intelligence until they satisfy both criteria.
- thfuran 2mo ago
  I'm not exactly that you mean by "new to the system", but it seems to me that that definition makes a calculator intelligent, which I can't agree with.
  - rcxdude 2mo ago
    Intelligence isn't a binary property. Is it really a problem to say that a calculator has some intelligence? That it's more intelligent than e.g. a rock?
  - tshaddox 2mo ago
    It's a continuum, and things very low on the intelligence continuum might not be referred to as intelligent in everyday usage. But many calculators are Turing complete and can thus clearly perform computations that I would consider intelligent. The basic algorithms used by simple calculators to perform arithmetic would be extremely low on the intelligent continuum.
setopt 2mo ago
> But the consistent trend of the last couple decades (arguably since Turing's time) seems to be that any time a computer reaches our definition of intelligence we decide that that was a flawed definition I do recall a couple of decades ago, when the Turing test was discussed as the big goal that seemed so far away. Then LLMs arguably did pass the test, and no one cared about the test anymore.
- kaeluka 2mo ago
  I thought the same then. But the funny thing is that today, it has become a lot easier to recognize the frontier models as not human. All the load bearing and not x but y, etc… weird
  - treis 2mo ago
    This is a tell of LLMs but it's not universal. I use ChatGPT extensively and I don't often get obvious nonsense any more. I'd figure out that it's an LLM because it's effectively superhuman. Taking that away I'm not so sure I'd be able to tell
    - jurgenburgen 2mo ago
      The ultimate tell is still the sycophancy. You agree with the suggestion output by the LLM but if it detects even a slight pushback it will completely reverse the previous suggestion. Only way to make it more obvious would be to have the LLM grovel and beg. If these things have consciousness then we are committing sadism on a massive scale.
      - treis 2mo ago
        It feels like it's getting better at that too. It will push back against obvious nonsense a lot stronger. But you are right that it holds opinions quite a bit less strenuously than humans.
- jaccola 2mo ago
  It hasn’t been passed and no one cares about it because it’s basically an end goal. No lab can hit it so they can’t juice the crazy Turing benchmark 3000 for marketing. If someone sat me down today with an LLM and a human and both were trying to prove to me they were human, and I can have conversations of arbitrary length, I’d get it right every time.
ben_w 2mo ago
> If intelligence requires sentience for you, then ... well, I don't think we really agree what that is either, never mind how to measure it. But LLMs certainly don't have it right now Probably. Hopefully.
ACCount37 2mo ago
> But LLMs certainly don't have it right now Why are you so sure of that? If you say yourself that we can't agree on what it is, and have no trusted measurement tools for it. LLM sentience is firmly in the realm of "maybe".
eloisius 2mo ago
> But the consistent trend of the last couple decades (arguably since Turing's time) seems to be that any time a computer reaches our definition of intelligence we decide that that was a flawed definition I think the mistake here is the notion that there was a definition of intelligence. Or at least a consensus on that definition. Just because compsci nerds of the day thought the Turing test was the final threshold before “real” AI, doesn’t mean philosophers, psychologists and everyone else bought into it. And when we arrived and it turns out to be underwhelming it’s because the compsci nerds made the same mistake they always make: that their models truly encompass all the dense complexity of the real world.

tshaddox 2mo ago

I don't think "intelligence" needs to carry all the intrigue and woo of related words like "consciousness" or "creative." If we just use "intelligence" to mean "the ability of a system to solve problems that are new to the system," that pretty much matches the dictionary definition and normal usage of the term. We don't need to touch messy questions like "is there something it's like to be a bat" to conclude that bats exhibit intelligence when they navigate long distances and hunt for food.

svachalek 2mo ago
I agree, but it's clear most people need a definition of intelligence that (1) they qualify for and (2) nothing/no one they don't like qualifies for. And they'll keep redefining intelligence until they satisfy both criteria.
thfuran 2mo ago
I'm not exactly that you mean by "new to the system", but it seems to me that that definition makes a calculator intelligent, which I can't agree with.
- rcxdude 2mo ago
  Intelligence isn't a binary property. Is it really a problem to say that a calculator has some intelligence? That it's more intelligent than e.g. a rock?
- tshaddox 2mo ago
  It's a continuum, and things very low on the intelligence continuum might not be referred to as intelligent in everyday usage. But many calculators are Turing complete and can thus clearly perform computations that I would consider intelligent. The basic algorithms used by simple calculators to perform arithmetic would be extremely low on the intelligent continuum.

setopt 2mo ago

> But the consistent trend of the last couple decades (arguably since Turing's time) seems to be that any time a computer reaches our definition of intelligence we decide that that was a flawed definition I do recall a couple of decades ago, when the Turing test was discussed as the big goal that seemed so far away. Then LLMs arguably did pass the test, and no one cared about the test anymore.

kaeluka 2mo ago
I thought the same then. But the funny thing is that today, it has become a lot easier to recognize the frontier models as not human. All the load bearing and not x but y, etc… weird
- treis 2mo ago
  This is a tell of LLMs but it's not universal. I use ChatGPT extensively and I don't often get obvious nonsense any more. I'd figure out that it's an LLM because it's effectively superhuman. Taking that away I'm not so sure I'd be able to tell
  - jurgenburgen 2mo ago
    The ultimate tell is still the sycophancy. You agree with the suggestion output by the LLM but if it detects even a slight pushback it will completely reverse the previous suggestion. Only way to make it more obvious would be to have the LLM grovel and beg. If these things have consciousness then we are committing sadism on a massive scale.
    - treis 2mo ago
      It feels like it's getting better at that too. It will push back against obvious nonsense a lot stronger. But you are right that it holds opinions quite a bit less strenuously than humans.
jaccola 2mo ago
It hasn’t been passed and no one cares about it because it’s basically an end goal. No lab can hit it so they can’t juice the crazy Turing benchmark 3000 for marketing. If someone sat me down today with an LLM and a human and both were trying to prove to me they were human, and I can have conversations of arbitrary length, I’d get it right every time.

ben_w 2mo ago

> If intelligence requires sentience for you, then ... well, I don't think we really agree what that is either, never mind how to measure it. But LLMs certainly don't have it right now Probably. Hopefully.

ACCount37 2mo ago

> But LLMs certainly don't have it right now Why are you so sure of that? If you say yourself that we can't agree on what it is, and have no trusted measurement tools for it. LLM sentience is firmly in the realm of "maybe".

eloisius 2mo ago

> But the consistent trend of the last couple decades (arguably since Turing's time) seems to be that any time a computer reaches our definition of intelligence we decide that that was a flawed definition I think the mistake here is the notion that there was a definition of intelligence. Or at least a consensus on that definition. Just because compsci nerds of the day thought the Turing test was the final threshold before “real” AI, doesn’t mean philosophers, psychologists and everyone else bought into it. And when we arrived and it turns out to be underwhelming it’s because the compsci nerds made the same mistake they always make: that their models truly encompass all the dense complexity of the real world.