These models don't have will which is why it can't decide anything.
As we increase parameter sizes and increment on the architecture, they’re just going to get better as statistical models. If we decide to assign terms reserved for human beings, that’s more a reflection on the individual. Also they certainly can decide to do things, but so can my switch statements.
I’m going to admit that I get a little unnerved when people say these statistical models have “actual intelligence”. The counter is always along the lines of “if we can’t tell the difference, what is the difference?”
Draw the line wherever you like, if you want to say that intelligence can't be meaningfully separated from stuff like self-awareness, memory, self-learning, self-consistency then that's fine. But is intelligence and reason really so special that you have to be a full being to exhibit it?
My comment is predicated on the belief that yes, at this moment it is more rational to assume we have a special spark. Moreso, it’s irrational that individuals believe that in these models there’s a uniqueness beyond a few emergent properties. It’s a critique on the individuals, not the systems. I worry many of us are a few Altman statements short of having a Blake Lemoine break.
To look at our statistical models and say they exhibit “actual intelligence” concerns me that individuals are losing groundness with what we have in front of us.
You do this! When you're speaking or writing you're going one word at a time just like the model, and just like the model your attention is moving between different things to form the thoughts. When you're writing you need at least a semi-complete thought in order for you figure out what word you should write next. The fact that it generates one word at a time is a red herring as to what's really going on.
Also, what are these “thoughts” you have when writing and what’s a “complete” vs. “semi-complete” one? Stupid question, yes, but you again vastly over-trivialize the real dynamic interplay between figuring out what word(s) to write and figuring out what precisely you’re actually trying to say at all. Writing really is another form of thinking for us.
A language is a vocabulary and a set of rules which can be described and codified, and is generally learned from others and other prior examples.
But all that describes is a tool called a language. The tool itself is mechanistic. The wielder may or may not be. The tool and the wielder are two different things.
A piece of paper with text on it is not a writer. A machine that writes text onto paper is still not a writer even though a human writer performs the same physical part of the process as the machine.
Similarly, just like it's possible for an mp3 player to make the same sounds we use to express concepts and convey understanding, without itself having any concepts or understanding, it is also possible for an intellect to perform mechanistic acts that don't require an intellect.
Sure, actually quite a lot of human activity can be described by simple rules that a machine can replicate. So what?
You can move a brick from one place to another. And so can a cart. And so can gravity. Therefor you are no different from a field?
It's utterly silly to be mystified by this. It's challenging the other ape in mirror for looking at you.
What's impressive is how much it can do by just doing that, because that function is so complicated. But it clearly has limits that aren't related to the scope of the training data, as is demonstrated to me daily by getting into a circular argument with ChatGPT about something.