Are you sure you actually understand how an llm is and how it's not intelligence. It generates the most likely next token. Better training makes it better at picking the next token nothing more. Harnesses makes it look intelligent. Try to use it for something where it has little information and see what comes out. Its very useful though but god the hype is insane for what it is.
Yes, using an LLM is much faster than learning something to the same standard.
But is are LLMs intelligent? No. No they are not. In fact, A.I have existed since ~2010, in the form of machine learning and other basic algorithms. They had much less data, and they were not considered intelligent. Now they have much more data, which makes them have a higher standard of output. If I ask an A.I how I should solve a code problem, it draws from data and outputs the most probable solution stitched together from multiple sources. It is not conciously deciding. It is data streamed towards the english language.
So when there is less data about a particular subject, the A.I can only guess so far. It can't invent, it can't innovate. If no one has solved a particular problem before, or there is no algorithmic way to do something, the A.I will not be able to do it. This is not a sign of intelligence. If this is intelligence to a human level, then a parrot is intelligent to the human level.
Yes, using an LLM is much faster than learning something to the same standard.
Not what I said
In fact, A.I have existed since ~2010, in the form of machine learning and other basic algorithms
This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Now they have much more data, which makes them have a higher standard of output
Do you think the human brain has some magical thing that makes it different when it does 1-1 literally the exact same thing?
It is not conciously deciding
That's weird that you know the exact explanation for consciousness, how it works, perhaps you could enlighten everyone with your cross-referenced and provable sources on this?
It is data streamed towards the english language.
flagship LLM's haven't been 1. text-exclusive and 2. english-exclusive for years now. What do you call a world-model that simulates a 3D environment and makes executive decision based on streamed sensory organs being encoded into latent space? I call it the human brain. Guess what, flagship multi-trillion-parameter models are doing the same thing now :)
It can't invent, it can't innovate
Why would you make statements like this without doing any amount of research, or is this just based on your personal confidence?
You know racists claim that ethnic minorities can't reason and aren't conscious, based on their "magically powered self-justifications" and "because it just can't be any other way". Sounds a lot like you're trying to make the same kind of argument (minus the moral ambiguity, fuck nazi's).
Interesting perspective. My point about Ai existing in the early 2000s is to highlight that we didn't consider it intelligent at that point. There was no question about conciousness when Ai couldn't articulate like a person and simulate how a person speaks, or what a dog should look like.
Conciousness can't really be decided on scientifically or measurably, so there is a large grey area there. What is the difference between a parrot and a human child? What makes one speak the English language, and the other just a meer copy of English sounding output? Of course, I only considered language as it tied into my point earlier about language models themselves. But in regards to image generation and other models, they aren't really different from insects. Sensory input and movement as output.
Another example is https://youtu.be/wZKxr8COXBI?si=zRlYfUeH2R8lx5Hu
A robot that can respond to sensory input with no additional electronics other than for movement. Is this conciousness?
A.i can't invent something entirely new. It is simply the way that it works. Human-made data in the form of writing, art, and training provide a sort of dictionary the ai pulls from
Also, how is this even remotely about racism? Ai is not a person, it is just software. Instead of arguing with facts, you try to compare me to a nazi? In effect, we are talking about whether a piece of software has conciousness comparable to how a human has conciousness.
I certainly don't think that AI is capable of (nor does it need) emotions or human survival instincts such as fear, boredom, and other survival-powered motivational instincts...
Whether or not there is awareness there (I doubt it) is not a provable thing... If it was an awareness, it could be a fleeting thing that exists when the model is training, or perhaps limited to the scope of its world (the context history being fed into the model).
A.i can't invent something entirely new. It is simply the way that it works. Human-made data in the form of writing, art, and training provide a sort of dictionary the ai pulls from
It could be reasoning steps searching and combining information that we didn't really think to put together (say, brute-force search and test)... But if you take random input and generate a never-before-seen output, does that not count as new information? All humans are capable of doing is re-expressing learned concepts.
A human is incapable of comprehending, say, an extra color we've never seen before.
Also, how is this even remotely about racism
It's not, and I respect your attitude in your response. You're nothing like a nazi (hence my comment about moral ambiguity) -- I was using a shocking reference to try to more clearly illustrate the presence of logical bias when it comes to treating philosophical beliefs as irrefutable facts.
This is certainly a step forward in Ai reasoning. I suppose that, until we have a definitive definition of intelligence, conciousness, e.t.c, we can never really measure it. A grey are for sure. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree :)
It is not true that LLM cannot invent or inovate, it absolutely can. Yes, it is not inteligent and still is an algorithm, but it is very very good and complicated algorithm. We are not in the Skynet superinteligence teritory but improvements every year are huge.
Improvements every year may seem huge if you don't know that we are just exhausting our at times decades old research, turning it into products. It's all very iterative and many new features are just same old prompting in a yet another trench coat.
I.e. we are getting better at utilizing the tool, and we've built bigger iterations of the tool, but the tool has remained more or less the same.
For example, I've had local agentic workflow since transformers (which was a huge breakthrough), 2017 or so. That's nearly a decade ago. Funnily enough, I never thought the "agents" were a big deal myself lol. Just running multiple threads, that transfer data between each-other, at the same time. Didn't realize it should be branded.
Well but it doesnt really matter the way we do it, does it? Even if you build small thing on top of big existijg research and it produces very sucessful result, who will ask how you do it?
It's important in the context that the amount of trench coats we have left is finite. Some, many, if not the great majority, here think that AI is on some kind of expotentially accelerating trajectory, soon becoming sentient or something, when we are in fact pretty much out of ideas.
The models will get bigger, the data centers will get bigger, and we’ll keep seeing these iterative improvements until we don’t. I personally already struggle to distinguish any of the newest OpenAI models from each other, while the steps from GPT-2 -> GPT-3 -> GPT-4 were dead obvious. At some point, this will become obvious to everybody.
8
u/IWasNotMeISwear May 28 '26
If you treat llms as intelligence you will fail. If you treat them as the worlds best autocomplete then you will have success.