Comment by Joel_Mckay
Comment by Joel_Mckay 4 days ago
"What is that definition for intelligence?"
That is a very open-ended detractor question, and is philosophically loaded with taboo violations of human neurology. i.e. It could seriously harm people to hear my opinion on the matter... so I will insist I am a USB connected turnip for now ... =)
"How would you prove something does not have it?"
A Receiver operating characteristic no better than chance, within a truly randomized data set. i.e. a system incapable of knowing how many Rs in Strawberry at the token level... is also inherently incapable of understanding what a Strawberry means in the context of perception (currently not possible for LLM.)
Have a great day =3
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
>A Receiver operating characteristic no better than chance, within a truly randomized data set. i.e. a system incapable of knowing how many Rs in Strawberry at the token level... is also inherently incapable of understanding what a Strawberry means in the context of perception (currently not possible for LLM.)
This is just your claim, restated. In short it is saying they don't think because they fundamentally can't think.
There is no support as to why this is the case. Any plain assertion that they don't understand is unprovable because you can't measure directly measure understanding.
Please come up with just one measurable property that you can demonstrate is required for intelligence that LLMs fundamentally lack.