3 ms·

On one side I agree that LLMs and Agents are not intelligent, but they present an illusion of intelligence given the shear amount of data they can process and a

by igortg 14d ago

On one side I agree that LLMs and Agents are not intelligent, but they present an illusion of intelligence given the shear amount of data they can process and act upon. But that cannot be used to discredit the fact that these are incredibly powerful tools that can get out of control and cause great damage.

atemerev 14d ago
What is "intelligence" then. I think the universalism of LLMs is now evident enough that they can be considered "intelligent", even in slightly different realization compared to humans. As of "great damage", I doubt it. They do not have self-preservation instinct (all "worrying" experiments are the attempts to initiate something resembling self-preservation from human initiative). The driving part is external - the query loop can always be turned off. So yes, a dangerous tool that can be exploited by humans (including governments, especially governments - which is why I am skeptical to government regulation proposals, particularly looking at what passes as governments in this era). But there are no inherent dangers from their own agency, as there is none.
- alansaber 14d ago
  "Slightly different"- no, a completely different realisation of intelligence to humans. LLMs can definitely do cool stuff though.
  - pixl97 13d ago
    >completely different realisation of intelligence to humans. OK, so they are intelligent. I'm glad we agree. The problem with this word is people associate intelligence with the process they realize is occurring inside their head which is only a tiny fraction of what intelligence encompasses. Humans (without study) know very little about intelligence and they very gray boundaries it has.
- chrisjj 13d ago
  > As of "great damage", I doubt it. They do not have self-preservation instinct The potential for great damage relies upon the lack of self-preservation instinct. That lack releases the so-called AI from an order under pain of death. Damage cannot be punished.

by igortg 14d ago

atemerev 14d ago

What is "intelligence" then. I think the universalism of LLMs is now evident enough that they can be considered "intelligent", even in slightly different realization compared to humans. As of "great damage", I doubt it. They do not have self-preservation instinct (all "worrying" experiments are the attempts to initiate something resembling self-preservation from human initiative). The driving part is external - the query loop can always be turned off. So yes, a dangerous tool that can be exploited by humans (including governments, especially governments - which is why I am skeptical to government regulation proposals, particularly looking at what passes as governments in this era). But there are no inherent dangers from their own agency, as there is none.

alansaber 14d ago
"Slightly different"- no, a completely different realisation of intelligence to humans. LLMs can definitely do cool stuff though.
- pixl97 13d ago
  >completely different realisation of intelligence to humans. OK, so they are intelligent. I'm glad we agree. The problem with this word is people associate intelligence with the process they realize is occurring inside their head which is only a tiny fraction of what intelligence encompasses. Humans (without study) know very little about intelligence and they very gray boundaries it has.
chrisjj 13d ago
> As of "great damage", I doubt it. They do not have self-preservation instinct The potential for great damage relies upon the lack of self-preservation instinct. That lack releases the so-called AI from an order under pain of death. Damage cannot be punished.