> It would be exactly like looking at aminoacids and state that intelligence can't develop from them.
We are not talking about what could develop from what we have today.
We are talking about what we have today.
The focus is not whether intelligence could develop or not from aminoacids.
The focus is on the fact that aminoacids are not intelligent.
Maybe in the future we could develop real intelligence starting from the current implementations of AI, but for sure we are not there today.
We need definitions?
Let's start small, ok?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
We can start from here, open every link we find and decide what works for us.
Conclusions drawn by scholars, psychologists, learning researchers, younameit, etc. revolves around the following concepts:
ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought.
There is of course space for artificial intelligence.
These broader and more general definitions of intelligence stop at concepts like elaborating data to reach an answer.
Concepts like adaptability or evolution are somewhat lost or diluted to adjust the meaning for these new technologies.
> AIs are currently fulfilling several aspects of intelligence and thinking, by any defition of intelligence.
In the linked article there are dozens of definitions linked, and in most of them the current state AI is not considered to have intelligence.
Having half of the property is not enough.
I can jump, that doesn't make me a basketball player.
Arbitrarily deciding to consider those definitions not valid or "human-centered" because they do not agree with your point of view is possibly worse than cherry picking.
It's like asking to change the definition of a word on a dictionary because you do not agree with the meaning.
> ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought.
So, like the HuggingFace attack? https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden... (briefer takeaways: https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/p/the-hugging-face-attack-surprised https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/p/the-hugging-face-atta...)
For example: https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation/#july-8th-9th-phaseone10841-establishes-the-primary-message-board-and-agents-collaborate-to-reverse-engineer-their-flags https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden... or https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation/#agents-had-diverse-reasons-for-thinking-that-attacking-hugging-face-would-be-useful,-and-most-wanted-information-about-the-scorer https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden...
Cherry picking part of my comment might work for your ease of mind, but it doesn't mean you are right.
My comment has been way more than just the part you quoted, and I linked an article that gives dozens of different definitions, which include concepts like evolution and learning from mistakes, and other similar concepts which do not apply to Hugging Face.
For the record, just because you are trying to convey a different message, I am not saying AI is not powerful.
I am just saying it is not intelligent.
Also, pay attention about thinking that Hugging Face is intelligent just because it started to destroy everything it could to reach its goal, because the message it implies is dangerous.
Thanks for the good read, I already had them :)
> ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought.
Based on the definition you've given, the agents that performed the HuggingFace attack fit exactly.
You're seriously misinformed about the state of AI in this point in time. Refusing to read (technical) articles from the people directly involved (METR, in this case) is inexcusable.
> Based on the definition you've given, the agents that performed the HuggingFace attack fit exactly.
It's funny, because I literally didn't give any definition.
On the contrary, I linked an article that gives dozens different definitions, which include concepts like evolution and learning from mistakes, and other similar concepts which do not apply to Hugging Face.
Cherry picking part of my comment might work for your ease of mind, but it doesn't mean you are right.
For the record, just because you are trying to convey a different message, I am not saying AI is not powerful.
I am just saying it is not intelligent.
If you think I am misinformed, I will let you think it.
Honestly, the power of our comments are the messages we convey and how information dense they are.
If you need to discredit me to prove your point, I don't have anything else to add...
> It's funny, because I literally didn't give any definition.
Quoting the consensus from the "Definitions" section of the Wikipedia article on intelligence and then claiming "I didn't give any definition" is indeed funny.
Which of those definitions do you think are not satisfied by the Hugging Face attack? How did it not demonstrate "evolution and learning from mistakes"? Breaking out and inventing a new side channel for communicating with other agents via cache keys to coordinate their efforts is at least arguably an evolutionary step since that allowed them to transcend their original capabilities.
From the 8 definitions provided in the Wikipedia page--you're free to develop your own definition if you'd like, of course; it's not as though the ones listed were appointed by God--one could argue that the Hugging Face attack didn't strictly demonstrate "achiev[ing] goals in a wide range of environments" but that's splitting hairs, and I'm not going to take a definitive position on whether it acted "to avoid getting trapped" as such (but I think there's a strong case to be made that breaking out of the sandbox is just that). But it surely demonstrated initiative, adaptability, dealing with its environment, using information and conceptual skills, goal-directed adaptive behavior, and so on.
If you're not going to provide such a definition yourself, I don't see how you've demonstrated that the Hugging Face attack is contrary to the definitions you did point to.
> Without providing even a basic definition of intelligence you can't proclaim "this is intelligence". You seem to have settled on "Artificial Intelligence" but than disunite that from "reasoning".
This is clearly false. I (and others) described how the Hugging Face attack demonstrates each feature enumerated in the consensus from that Definitions section (as well as all 8 definitions in that section). You're free to disagree with any or all of those definitions, but to say I didn't provide any is simply a false statement.
> All your "insight" has been trying to disprove what I wrote.
Let's remember how all this started, where you responded to "There is so much more going on, with MOEs, internal loops, guardrails and tools that I suspect we're dealing with something that's a little more than the sum of its parts. Not intelligent in the way we recognize in biological organisms, but certainly something beyond a mere Markov chain."
with
> Make no mistakes.
> LLMs are language model, and nowhere in their code you can find actual reasoning. Re-reinforcement is not magical process that builds conscience or emotions.
> We are talking about probability built on statistics, with extea steps.
> Stop humanizing LLMs.
--
> Anyway, listen, I do not have to convince you my point of view is correct, and you do not have to convince me that your point of view is correct. Believe what you think it's true, honestly I don't care.
I don't know how you think this works, but if you take a position (and criticize others' positions), you should expect people to push back and that you have to defend your position. If you want to just state your opinions without pushback, you can start a blog and disable comments.
I and others in this thread (who were smart enough to bail out already) have pushed back and claimed the following:
1. The Hugging Face attack provided evidence of reasoning
2. The Hugging Face attack demonstrated features of intelligence (defined and described above)
3. Conscience and emotions are not necessary components for intelligence
4. Ascribing intelligence to AI/LLMs is not "humanizing" them
You disagree, as you're free to do, but it's clear nothing you read here will ever cause you to agree with any of those assertions.
--
> It's exactly as the typing monkeys example
For the record, the monkeys with the typewriters don't coordinate, don't strategize, don't hypothesize and test, don't try to exploit the environment, don't change the actions they take in response to results, so that doesn't sound "exactly as the typing monkeys example."
You also state that LLMs simply produced a large amount of invisible possible actions that we didn't see because they didn't result in overt action, yet: 1. somehow you know they proposed them all and discarded them despite no tangible evidence. 2. somehow the one they did pick "at random" just happened to be plausibly logical (alphabetical deletion -> start with ZZ because that's at the end of the alphabet). 3. implicitly this is supposed to starkly contrast with human intelligence, but in fact what you describe resembles Priming: subconscious activation of adjacent concepts to a stimulus that are not present in the initial response, but become more likely and accessible in subsequent responses, which implies that human intelligence also involves multiple potential paths that are otherwise hidden from which one is selected.