He's not wrong. It's not intelligence. It's a simulacrum of intelligence. It can be useful but ought to not be trusted completely.
And it's certainly not a boon for freedom and openness.
And it's certainly not a boon for freedom and openness.
Acting Intelligent, works for me.
For one, it needs multiple orders of magnitude more tokens (millions? billions? more?) to start following grammar rules: watch any kid pick it up with exposure to maybe 10,000 words by the age of 2 (look how they apply the rule to exceptions and while it does not work, it shows their internalization of the rule).
Next, "how" LLMs work is evident when it barfs in gotcha questions like "if yesterday was Tuesday, what day was yesterday" (I believe all major players have overcome this one in the last 12 months, but you can always find these LLM-twisters: yes, you can trick humans too by distracting them, but these are computers which "don't pay attention"?)
And it can frequently undo an improvement it added earlier, or mess something new up that you did not call out specifically.
Don't get me wrong I think they are remarkable but I still prefer to call it LLM rather than AI.
A dog's cognitive capabilities are nowhere near human level. Is a dog intelligent?
An LLM is a very clever implementation of autocomplete. The truly vast amount of information we've fed it provides a wealth of material to search against, the language abstraction allows for autocompleting at a semantic level and we've add enough randomness to allow some variation in responses, but it is still autocomplete.
Anyone who has used an LLM enough in an uncommon domain they are very familiar with has no doubt seen evidence of the machine behind the curtain from faulty "reasoning" where it sometimes just plays madlibs to a complete lack of actual creativity.
> I call it a "bullshit generator" because it generates output "with indifference to the truth".
And if we follow the link we find he's referring to LLMs:
> “Bullshit generators” is a suitable term for large language models (“LLMs”) such as ChatGPT, that generate smooth-sounding verbiage that appears to assert things about the world, without understanding that verbiage semantically. This conclusion has received support from the paper titled ChatGPT is bullshit by Hicks et al. (2024).
No one thinks the database, orchestration, tool, etc. portions of ChatGPT are intelligent and frankly, I don't think anyone is confused by using LLM as shorthand not just for the trained model, but also all the support tools around it.
Any test you can device for this, ChatGPT would reliably pass if the medium was text, while a good fraction of humans might actually fail. It does a pretty good job if the medium was audio.
Video, and in person remains slightly out of reach for now. But I doubt we are not going to get there eventually.
That's clearly untrue unless you qualify "test" as "objective automated test." Otherwise, "convince Stallman you have intelligence according to his definition," is a test that ChatGPT hasn't passed and which every human probably would:
> I define "intelligence" as being capable of knowing or understanding, at least within some domain. ChatGPT cannot know or understand anything, so it is not intelligence. It does not know what its output means. It has no idea that words can mean anything.