4 ms·

I don't think intelligence needs to take the shape of human-like intelligence, nor human-like data efficiency. I'd argue they are intelligent entities, superhu

by vanuatu 13d ago

I don't think intelligence needs to take the shape of human-like intelligence, nor human-like data efficiency. I'd argue they are intelligent entities, superhuman in some ways due to being run on silicon but extremely data inefficient with nonobvious failure modes.

deleted 13d ago
[deleted]
roncesvalles 13d ago
>I don't think intelligence needs to take the shape of human-like intelligence But then the word doesn't mean anything. Intelligence is almost by definition what we're like. If you think LLMs are intelligent, you have to concede that databases are also intelligent. And if you can't then you need to ponder deeply about what quality of an LLM's response to your query makes it (seem) more "intelligent" than a database's response to your SQL query, beyond the trivial thing that it's in natural language.
- vanuatu 13d ago
  No, it's not. We don't really have a good definition of intelligence. If we can imagine non-carbon based life forms, I don't think its a leap to imagine non-human brain based intelligence (octopi?) > If you think LLMs are intelligent, you have to concede that databases are also intelligent. No, I don't. The mechanism by which LLMs answer and reason through problems is different, so I simply don't think these are comparable.