Hacker News Reader

Comment by gitfan86 | Hacker News Reader

When a human makes a mistake it is a "cognitive 0-day" but when an LLM does something correctly it is "illusory"?

The cognitive 0-day is not the way that humans act like LLMs, it's the way humans anthropomorphize LLMs. It's the blind faith that LLMs do more than they do.

The illusion of emergence is fact not fiction. The cognitive biases exposed by stochastic parrots are fact not fiction.

That is no different than saying beauty is only real if it is 100% natural. A woman who wears makeup and colors her hair is just an illusion of beauty.

It is a philosophical argument to say that a machine isn't truly intelligent because it isn't using the same type of neural network as a human

Parent is saying that with something as sophisticated as intelligence it's not enough to say that if it behaves like a duck it's a duck (which is what your seem to be saying and which the parent calls a 0-day).

There are some really good bulshitters who have led smart people into deep trouble. These bulshitters behaved really like ducks but they weren't ducks. The duck test just isn't good enough.

The -1 day is where people say that because LLMs behave like humans then humans must be based on the same tech. I just wonder if these people have ever debugged a complex system only to discover that their initial model of how it worked was way off.

That is a new definition of intelligence that you are using. You are saying that even when something can outperform humans in the SAT or other tests of intelligence, it isn't actually intelligent due to it not being a carbon based lifeform

No. I gave the example of a bullshitter - who is usually a carbon based life form.

Outperforming on the SAT(a test that the model was trained on) doesn't seem like a marker of intelligence as much as it is of recall.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com