I have a two year old that can't count. She can definitely walk around, talk, eat, and do all sorts of other things that I would argue indicate some form of intelligence.

Same for my dog.

Same for entire cultures, including adult humans (anumeric cultures).

Arguably, they're constantly doing calculus, because they can walk, throw, catch, etc - but none of them can count.

---

That said, to the point of my original comment - forcing a definition was absolutely useful, because it allows a more detailed and interesting conversation than "qsera doesn't believe an LLM is intelligent".

I agree that one is a poor definition, though. I also don't really think it rules out LLMs.

▲

qsera an hour ago | parent [-]

You are not getting it or getting it all very wrong..

Is a robot that can walk, throw and catch is intelligent?

Last day there was a robot that can play ping pong? Is that intelligent?

	▲	horsawlarway a minute ago \| parent [-]
		but that's exactly the point. Is that intelligent? We also see robots excel at chess and go, is that not intelligent? Why not? Given that's the mental opposite of the physical examples you're happy to discard (side note: I've done real world robotics development, I'd call walking/catching/throwing considerably more difficult activities than chess/go, and much closer to intelligence). We see LLMs absolutely blow through the turing test, and that was literally the philosophical "gold standard" for machines that exhibit human-like intelligence for like 70 years. So I really don't think I'm "getting it all very wrong" - I think this is a fundamental question that you're basically failing to honestly engage with because you've already made up your mind. So again - define intelligence?