>Meaning however you (reasonably) define intelligence, if you compare humans to any AI system humans are overwhelmingly more capable.

Really ? Every Human ? Are you sure ? because I certainly wouldn't ask just any human for the things I use these models for, and I use them for a lot of things. So, to me the idea that all humans are 'overwhelmingly more capable' is blatantly false.

>Defining "intelligence" as "solving a math equation" is not a reasonable definition of intelligence.

What was achieved here or in the link I sent is not just "solving a math equation".

>Or else we'd be talking about how my calculator is intelligent.

If you said that humans are overwhelmingly more capable than calculators in arithmetic, well I'd tell you you were talking nonsense.

>Of course computers can compute faster than we can, that's aside the point.

I never said anything about speed. You are not making any significant point here lol

>No, I don't mean how the intelligence evolved or was created.

Well then what are you saying ? Because the only brute-forced aspect of LLM intelligence is its creation. If you do not mean that then just drop the point.

>But if you want to make that argument you're essentially asserting we have a creator, because to "brute force" something means it was intentional.

First of all, this makes no sense sorry. Evolution is regularly described as a brute force process by atheist and religious scientists alike.

Second, I don't have any problem with people thinking we have a creator, although that instance still does necessarily mean a magic 'poof into existence' reality either.

>But my point is that LLM's essentially arrive at answers by brute force through search.

Sorry but that's just not remotely true. This is so untrue I honestly don't know what to tell you. This very post, with the transcript available is an example of how untrue it is.

>or the amount of energy it takes to do things humans can do with orders of magnitude less (our brain runs on %20 of a lightbulb!).

Meaningless comparison. You are looking at two completely different substrates. Do you realize how much compute it would take to run a full simulation of the human brain on a computer ? The most powerful super computer on the planet could not run this in real time.

▲

gf000 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Really ? Every Human ?

Yes, in many ways absolutely. Just because a model is a better "Google" than my dummy friend doesn't mean that this same friend is more capable at countless cases.

> Meaningless comparison. You are looking at two completely different substrates. Do you realize how much compute it would take to run a full simulation of the human brain on a computer ? The most powerful super computer on the planet could not run this in real time.

Isn't that just more proof how efficient the human brain is? Especially that a wire has much better properties than water solutions in bags.

	▲	famouswaffles 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>Just because a model is a better "Google" than my dummy friend doesn't mean that this same friend is more capable at countless cases. People use LLMs for a lot of things. 'Better Google' is is a tiny slice of that. >Isn't that just more proof how efficient the human brain is? Sure. So what ? If a game runs poorly on one hardware and excellently on another, does that mean the game was fundamentally different between the 2 devices ? No, Of course not.

▲

slopinthebag 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I never said that humans are better than LLM's along every axis. Rather, a reasonable definition of intelligence would necessarily encompass domains that LLM's are either incapable of or inferior to us.

Here might be some definitions of intelligence for example:

> The aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment.

> "...the resultant of the process of acquiring, storing in memory, retrieving, combining, comparing, and using in new contexts information and conceptual skills".

> Goal-directed adaptive behavior.

> a system's ability to correctly interpret external data, to learn from such data, and to use those learnings to achieve specific goals and tasks through flexible adaptation

But even a housefly possesses levels of intelligence regarding flight and spacial awareness that dominates any LLM. Would it be fair to say a fly is more intelligent than an LLM? It certainly is along a narrow set of axis.

> Because the only brute-forced aspect of LLM intelligence is its creation.

I would consider statistical reasoning systems that can simulate aspects of human thought to be a form of brute force. Not quite an exhaustive search, but massively compressed experience + pattern matching.

But regardless, even if both forms of intelligence arrived via some form of brute force, what is more important to me is the result of that - how does the process of employing our intelligence look.

> This very post, with the transcript available is an example of how untrue it is.

The transcript lacks the vector embeddings of the model's reasoning. It's literally just a summary from the model - not even that really.

> Do you realize how much compute it would take to run a full simulation of the human brain on a computer ? The most powerful super computer on the planet could not run this in real time.

You're so close to getting it lol

▲

famouswaffles 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>I never said that humans are better than LLM's along every axis. Rather, a reasonable definition of intelligence would necessarily encompass domains that LLM's are either incapable of or inferior to us.

So all humans are overwhelmingly more intelligent but cannot even manage to be as capable in a significant number of domains ? That's not what overwhelming means.

>I would consider statistical reasoning systems that can simulate aspects of human thought to be a form of brute force.

That is not really what “brute force” means. Pattern learning over a compressed representation of experience is not the same thing as exhaustive search. Calling any statistical method “brute force” just makes the term too vague to be useful.

> what is more important to me is the result of that - how does the process of employing our intelligence look.

But this is exactly where you are smuggling in assumptions. We do not actually understand the internal workings of either the human brain or frontier LLMs at the level needed to make confident claims like this. So a lot of what you are calling “the result” is really just your intuition about what intelligence is supposed to look like.

And I do not think that distinction is as meaningful as you want it to be anyway. Flight is flight. Birds fly and planes fly. A plane is not a “simulacrum of flight” just because it achieves the same end by a different mechanism.

>The transcript lacks the vector embeddings of the model's reasoning. It's literally just a summary from the model - not even that really.

You do not need access to every internal representation to see that the model did not arrive at the answer by brute-forcing all possibilities. The observed behavior is already enough to rule that out.

> Do you realize how much compute it would take to run a full simulation of the human brain on a computer ? The most powerful super computer on the planet could not run this in real time.

>You're so close to getting it lol.

No you don't understand what I'm saying. If we were to be more accurate to the brain in silicon, it would be even less efficient than LLMs, never mind humans. Does that mean how the brain works is wrong ? No it means we are dealing with 2 entirely different substrates and directly comparing efficiencies like that to show one is superior is silly.

▲

slopinthebag 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> So all humans are overwhelmingly more intelligent but cannot even manage to be as capable in a significant number of domains

When the amount of domains in which humans are more capable than LLM's vastly exceeds the amount of domains in which LLM's are more capable than humans, yes.

I also agree that we don't have a great understanding of either human or LLM intelligence, but we can at least observe major differences and conclude that there are, in fact, major differences. In the same way we can conclude that both birds and planes have major differences, and saying that "there's nothing unique about birds, look at planes" is just a really weird thing to say.

> If we were to be more accurate to the brain in silicon, it would be even less efficient than LLMs

Do you think perhaps this massive difference points to there being a significant and foundational structural and functional difference between these types of intelligences?

	▲	famouswaffles 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]