An LLM is just summarizing bad information.
In other words, there is no real *intelligence* involved at all.
*Intelligence* has yet to be accurately defined --- and there is no reason to believe it is a statistical function.
In other words, there is no real *intelligence* involved at all.
*Intelligence* has yet to be accurately defined --- and there is no reason to believe it is a statistical function.
In fact, at time of writing, "natural language understanding" is still on the Wikipedia page for AI-complete.
> Intelligence has yet to be accurately defined --- and there is no reason to believe it is a statistical function
Other than the work of Rev. Bayes, Prof. Schrödinger. Plus, now I think about it, saying "randomness can't lead to intelligence" is the talking point for all the people who insist Darwin is wrong and there has to be an intelligent designer.
Evolution is a process where small changes over a long time create new, more complex organisms. LLMs are not that. LLMs are not evolving themselves, giving themselves new abilities. Just adding more variables to a long list of variables is not the same thing.
Given enough time, a monkey randomly typing on a keyboard could hypothetically produce Shakespeare.
But talking points aside, this does not make the monkey more "intelligent" nor does it mean that "randomness" is a practical methodology for achieving specific results on a human timescale.
Particularly when the desired result is as complex and poorly understood as "intelligence".
> But talking points aside, this does not make the monkey more "intelligent" nor does it mean that "randomness" is a practical methodology for achieving specific results on a human timescale.
Not by itself. Evolution is more than just random, it's a specific filter on top of randomness, just like all the other things. And computers roll the dice very quickly compared to reproduction, which is why neither you nor any other human can win a chess game against the best computer any more — it did it on a human timescale.