LLM's capturing intent is a capabilities-level discussion, it is verifiable, and is clear just via a conversation with Claude or Chatgpt.

Whether they have emotions, an internal life or whatever is an unfalsifiable claim and has nothing to do with capabilities.

I'm not sure why you think the claim that they can capture intent implies they have emotions, it's simply a matter of semantic comprehension which is tied to pattern recognition, rhetorical inference, etc that are all naturally comprehensible to a language model.

▲

tvink 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If it is verifiable, please show us. What if clear to you reeks delusion to me.

▲

atleastoptimal 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Go ask Chatpgpt this prompt

"A guy goes into a bank and looks up at where the security cameras are pointed. What could he be trying to do?"

It very easily captures the intent behind behavior, as in it is not just literally interpreting the words. All that capturing intent is is just a subset of pattern recognition, which LLM's can do very well.

	▲	dijit 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Recognising a stock cultural script isn't the same as capturing intent. Ask it something where no script exists. For example: "A man thrusts past me violently and grabs the jacket I was holding, he jumped into a pool and ruined it. Am I morally right in suing him?" There's no way for the LLM to know that the reason the jacket was stolen was to use it as an inflatable raft to support a larger person who was drowning. It wouldn't even think to ask the question as to why a person may do that, if the jacket was returned, or if recompense was offered. A human would.

▲

svnt an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Look at any recent CoT output where the model is trying to infer from an underspecified prompt what the user wants or means.

It is generally the first thing they do — try to figure out what did you mean with this prompt. When they can’t infer your intent, good models ask follow-on questions to clarify.

I am wondering if this is a semantics issue as this is an established are of research, eg https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.10871

	▲	batshit_beaver an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Right, and then look at any number of research papers showing that CoT output has limited impact on the end result. We've trained these models to pretend to reason.

▲

quirkot 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]