So can we consider "intelligence" when that simulacrum is orders of magnitude stronger?
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.