> We do have comparable tools to LLMs. There are plenty of human-composed tools that can do what LLMs do, like Mechanical Turk for instance.

If you are going to treat humans as tools, then sure. In which case measuring LLMs against human ability is exactly the right thing, given that with Mechanical Turk the tasks are carried out by humans - sometimes with the help of LLMs...

It's utterly bizarre to argue over my comparing LLMs to humans when the tools you argue are comparable are humans.

▲

ModernMech 6 days ago | parent [-]

> when the tools you argue are comparable are humans.

No, they are abstractions over humans. A group of people is not a person, they behave differently than people even though they are composed of them. Abstractions are hard to compare but still much easier than people.

▲

vidarh 6 days ago | parent [-]

This is a meaningless difference that does not alter any of what I wrote.

You're just trying to evade dealing with the contradiction in your argument.

	▲	ModernMech 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's not a meaningless difference, it's a crucial one. The contradiction only exists if you collapse all the differences between people and abstractions of people -- crucially that the former are people and the latter are abstractions -- and claim they're the same. Which they are not. Anyway, we've gotten far from the point, which is that LLMs are not people and you can't treat them as such.