Does the mechanism really disqualify it from intelligence if behaviorally, you cannot distinguish it from “real” intelligence?
I’m not saying that LLMs have certainly surpassed the “cannot distinguish from real intelligence” threshold, but saying there’s not even a little bit of intelligence in a system that can solve more complex math problems than I can seems like a stretch.
Current LLMs are a long way from there.
You may think "sure seems like it passes the Turing test to me!" but they all fail if you carry on a conversation long enough. AIs need some equivalent of neuroplasticity and as of yet they do not have it.
whats the benefit of calling something "intelligent" ?
That does actually disqualify some mechanisms from counting as intelligent, as the behaviour cannot reach that threshold.
We might change the definition - science adapts to the evidence, but right now there are major hurdles to overcome before such mechanisms can be considered intelligent.
It has no intelligence. Intelligence implies thinking and it isn’t doing that. It’s not notifying you at 3am to say “oh hey, remember that thing we were talking about. I think I have a better solution!”
No. It isn’t thinking. It doesn’t understand.
If existing humans minds could be stopped/started without damage, copied perfectly, and had their memory state modified at-will would that make us not intelligent?
So to rephrase: it’s not independent or autonomous. But it can still be intelligent. This is probably a good time to point out that trees are independent and autonomous. So we can conclude that LLMs are possibly as intelligent as trees. Super duper.
> If existing humans minds could be stopped/started without damage, copied perfectly, and had their memory state modified at-will would that make us not intelligent?
To rephrase: if you take something already agreed to as intelligent, and changed it, is it still intelligent? The answer is, no damn clue.
These are worse than weak arguments, there is no thesis.
If you were put into a medically induced coma, you probably shouldn't be consider intelligent either.
For example, we as humans aren’t even present in the moment — different stimuli take different lengths of time to reach our brain, so our brain creates a synthesis of “now” that isn’t even real. You can’t even play Table Tennis unless you can predict up to one second in the future with enough details to be in the right place to hit the ball the ball before you hit the ball to your opponent.
Meanwhile, an AI will go off-script during code changes, without running it by the human. It should be able to easily predict the human is going to say “wtaf” when it doesn’t do what is asked, and handle that potential case BEFORE it’s an issue. That’s ultimately what makes something intelligent: the ability to predict the future, anticipate issues, and handle them.
No AI currently does this.