What is that baseline threshold for intelligence? Could you provide concrete and objective results, that if demonstrated by a computer system would satisfy your criteria for intelligence?

▲

no_wizard 5 months ago | parent [-]

see the edit. boils down to the ability to generalize, LLMs can't generalize. I'm not the only one who holds this view either. Francois Chollet, a former intelligence researcher at Google also shares this view.

	▲	highfrequency 5 months ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Are you able to formulate "generalization" in a concrete and objective way that could be achieved unambiguously, and is currently achieved by a typical human? A lot of people would say that LLMs generalize pretty well - they certainly can understand natural language sequences that are not present in their training data.
	▲	voidspark 5 months ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Chollet's argument was that it's not "true" generalization, which would be at the level of human cognition. He sets the bar so high that it becomes a No True Scotsman fallacy. The deep neural networks are practically generalizing well enough to solve many tasks better than humans.
	▲	stevenAthompson 5 months ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Francois Chollet, a former intelligence researcher at Google also shares this view. Great, now there are two of you.