4 ms·
What is "intelligence" then. I think the universalism of LLMs is now evident enough that they can be considered "intelligent", even in slightly different realiz
by atemerev 6d 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 6d ago"Slightly different"- no, a completely different realisation of intelligence to humans. LLMs can definitely do cool stuff though.
- pixl97 6d 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 5d 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.