> Without providing even a basic definition of intelligence you can't proclaim "this isn't intelligence". You seem to have settled on "Human Intelligence" but then incorrectly conflate that with "reasoning".
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".
At this point I don't know if you are just ignoring part of the discussion or you are willingly passing over concepts you don't like/don't need for your train of thoughts.
You are right to say I didn't provide my own personal definition of intelligence, but this would kill every purpose.
What if my definition of intelligence is merely "having brain cells"?
I intentionally tried to use common literature on the matter.
As naive start, I linked a wikipedia page.
I underlined that that is just a starting point, and not an exhaustive and complete assessment.
People study these kind of things for years, and we cannot summarize or reduce it to a single comment here on HN.
> You seem to have settled on "Human Intelligence"
I literally linked an article with a dedicated artificial intelligence section...
If you search, there is another page on wikipedia dedicated just to human intelligence.
> You are describing the agents applying hypotheses and reasoning.
Except I am not.
I described what is the output that worked.
Only because I used the verb "thought" it doesn't mean they actually thought. This is exactly why I say we shouldn't humanize AI.
Don't get hung uo on the exact words I used, focus on what I meant.
They didn't reason, they tried random things at very high speed until they hit a working solution.
The fact that most of this trials are discarded before actually being implemented is not a working thought process.
It's exactly as the typing monkeys example, you just can't see all the wrong papers printed on the floor.
The direction that seems to be reasoning is still probability built on statistics with extra steps.
All your "insight" has been trying to disprove what I wrote.
You didn't provide your definition of intelligence either and just claimed AI is intelligent.
At least I tried to give some reads, wrote by people who studied, and not my personal opinions.
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.
If you have some good reads to link, I will gladly read it, if you have to just keep saying AI is intelligent, I got your point messages ago, you didn't add any actual meaning to the conversation.
> 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.
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".
At this point I don't know if you are just ignoring part of the discussion or you are willingly passing over concepts you don't like/don't need for your train of thoughts.
You are right to say I didn't provide my own personal definition of intelligence, but this would kill every purpose. What if my definition of intelligence is merely "having brain cells"? I intentionally tried to use common literature on the matter.
As naive start, I linked a wikipedia page. I underlined that that is just a starting point, and not an exhaustive and complete assessment. People study these kind of things for years, and we cannot summarize or reduce it to a single comment here on HN.
> You seem to have settled on "Human Intelligence"
I literally linked an article with a dedicated artificial intelligence section... If you search, there is another page on wikipedia dedicated just to human intelligence.
> You are describing the agents applying hypotheses and reasoning.
Except I am not. I described what is the output that worked. Only because I used the verb "thought" it doesn't mean they actually thought. This is exactly why I say we shouldn't humanize AI. Don't get hung uo on the exact words I used, focus on what I meant. They didn't reason, they tried random things at very high speed until they hit a working solution. The fact that most of this trials are discarded before actually being implemented is not a working thought process.
It's exactly as the typing monkeys example, you just can't see all the wrong papers printed on the floor. The direction that seems to be reasoning is still probability built on statistics with extra steps.
All your "insight" has been trying to disprove what I wrote. You didn't provide your definition of intelligence either and just claimed AI is intelligent. At least I tried to give some reads, wrote by people who studied, and not my personal opinions.
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.
If you have some good reads to link, I will gladly read it, if you have to just keep saying AI is intelligent, I got your point messages ago, you didn't add any actual meaning to the conversation.