>There is no concrete definition so there is no concrete way of deciding if something is intelligent.
You say there is no concrete way of deciding if something is intelligent, yet you yourself have decided that LLMs are not intelligent.
He's not saying there's no way of judging intelligence, he's just pointing out there's no universal agreement on what intelligence even is.
Edit: To add, this discussion becomes pure semantics. On one side is a strict definition of AGI, on the other side are the most generalized definitions of artificial intelligence. It gets kind of silly because technically, every "if" statement is a type of "AI" by the loosest definitions.
Which is why I find it strange that he takes it upon himself to proclaim in a definitive manner that LLMs are not intelligent, and not "by any stretch."
Expressing your own point of view while acknowledging that other points of view exist shouldn't be strange. Strange is not being able to see things from different perspectives, those people are abnormal even when they happen to be in the majority.
The only valid criticism I see is that "by any stretch" is hyperbolic, but that's easily forgivable.
>As much as people want to believe, LLMs are not intelligent by any stretch.
Acknowledging other points of view would have sounded more like "People are free to believe what they want, but LLMs don't strike me as intelligent."
False, he explicitly acknowledges other points of view on what defines intelligence:
"There is no concrete definition so there is no concrete way of deciding if something is intelligent."
Acknowledging that your way of thinking isn't the only way of thinking doesn't make someone a hypocrite, it's actually a sign of intelligence (in my opinion).
They said "As much as people want to believe" which means that it shouldn't be counted as intelligent by other people's definition. Even by most liberal interpretation, the comment(which is top rated) doesn't say what you are trying to imply
"There is no concrete definition so there is no concrete way of deciding if something is intelligent."
The fact that it contradicts previous statements makes me believe there's some hyperbole going on.
Compare "Intelligent Design" vs. the use of genetic algorithms in AI. Simple forms of intelligence can get you a long way and can seem very impressive, especially if they have a lot of subjective experiences, which DNA gets from deep time and which AI gets from transistors outpacing synapses by the ratio to which a pack of wolves outpace continental drift.
LLMs are lacking in fluid intelligence and there is even a good benchmark for it called the abstract reasoning corpus.