No, what I would say is the tasks which are handled in a passable manner by LLMs can be mathematically modeled with some reasonable accuracy.

Many things are predicted by models in our planet. From weather to production and material science. Building the model needs intelligence, running the model does not.

The person who came up with the formulae for CFD was intelligent. The computer running the model is not. Same for LLMs, chess engines, engine ECUs and financial prediction systems.

Again, for the example’s sake; the person who came up with an algorithm is intelligent. The model mixing its training data to emit something similar is not.

▲

hombre_fatal an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This starts to feel like you're defining the word intelligence out of any meaning and out of any way we apply that word.

So when LLMs can do all human knowledge work, and do it better than humans, we'll be in the mines listening to you go on about how it's actually just autocomplete or just math, a distinction that apparently means nothing.

	▲	bayindirh 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> This starts to feel like you're defining the word intelligence out of any meaning and out of any way we apply that word. No. > So when LLMs can do all human knowledge work, and do it better than humans, we'll be in the mines listening to you go on about how it's actually just autocomplete or just math, a distinction that apparently means nothing. With a big "if" attached to it. People were saying "computers will program themselves in the near future" for, checks notes, 24 years now, as far as I'm aware. We're constantly building new knowledge and understanding things better than olden days. These models just compress our knowledge and light the blind corners we can't see well. I don't say they are useless, but I say that these things are overhyped. All they can do is regurgitate human knowledge packed into them and highlight some long-distance correlations between items, which is useful in itself, but it can't jump to somewhere where it's not present its training data, but that's something humans and only humans can do.

▲

pyridines an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I get what you're saying. The thing itself is just math. I'll just say it depends on how you define intelligence. If at some point we're be able to simulate a human brain with 100% accuracy, I would say that it is intelligent, it sounds like you would not. (I don't mean to imply consciousness or personhood or anything else by "intelligent".)

	▲	bayindirh 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		For me intelligence is a fairly clean-cut concept, and is somewhat inseparable from consciousness itself. Briefly, any intelligent creature has internal stochastic processes like sensory inputs and feelings to a certain degree. These stochastic inputs and the creature's own actions change the creature in subtle or profound ways. An LLM has no such processes. You push inputs to the same static model, sans temperature which is just a randomness slider. Considering the model even doesn't see the words and work on matrices of numbers is even more telling. One needs to add "tools" and other "experts" to overcome the shortcomings caused by this modus operandi. I can call the algorithm/model smart as in a smartwatch. It can mimic certain things well while having none of the underlying foundation beneath it, or redirect some of the things to correct tools to get deterministic and accurate results if it can't evaluate the query inside its own network in a sane manner. Coming to your question, "simulating a brain" in a static manner would not make that simulation intelligent, but if you can "wire" it completely and let it evolve by itself, now we're entering a territory I have not spent enough time for thinking it through. Oh, as I said "I don't know", an LLM doesn't know what it doesn't know, and can't self correct itself which are required capabilities for understanding something. It just generates something statistically viable via its network.