new | show | ask | jobs Github

willmarch 15 hours ago

"you can solve NS without thinking."

What?!

The constant goalpost moving and redefining of "thinking" and "intelligence" is simply unbelievable at this point

▲

lukewarm707 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

i have long held that llms are not intelligent and do not think.

intelligence and thinking are efforts to describe consciousness.

perhaps intelligence became a term used to describe something 'capable'. people market 'intelligent thermostats'.

llms are not conscious.

▲

emp17344 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Or you could just accept that other people disagree with you. It’s perfectly valid to have the opinion that AI models are not “thinking”. Instead, many AI enthusiasts seem interested in browbeating others and policing discussion.

▲

willmarch 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Can you explain to me how a Millennium Problem gets solved without any thinking or intelligence?

If someone's opinion is illogical and clearly incorrect (not based in facts or in reality) it is not valid and doesn't not have to be given any serious consideration in a disagreement. Personal opinions are subordinate to facts and reality.

▲

lukewarm707 12 hours ago | parent [-]

there is no proof that symbolic manipulation leads to an internal phenomenology.

in english: doing advanced mathmatics does not create thoughts or feelings.

or awareness of one's own existence.

it does not create a 'self' able to deduce a priori the existence of oneself or the external world.

or qualia.

again in english: there is nothing it is like to be an llm.

someone who thinks llms are conscious is probably a panpsychist. i don't think they have the features of consciousness defined even by functionalism.

here is one fairly famous thought experiment. mary lives in a black and white room. but she knows everything about color. in fact she predicts it so accurately nobody can tell the difference. she steps outside into the world of color. in the world where llms are conscious, she already knew color, so she experienced color, so there is nothing new it is like to see it.

▲

willmarch 9 hours ago | parent [-]

You just completely ignored the two words being discussed: "thinking" and "intelligence"

▲

lukewarm707 6 hours ago | parent [-]

if something is not conscious, a) it does not think b) it is not intelligent. an llm is not conscious.

	▲	willmarch 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		First off, there is no accepted definition or test for consciousness. The concept is something we cannot prove even exists (outside of magical or imprecise, human-centric definitions). Second, there is no common definition of thinking that requires consciousness as a prerequisite (that seems to be a false/invalid statement you're making to try to gloss over accepted definitions for thinking/intelligence that describe/fit AI agents well). And third, if we can't prove consciousness even in animal species close to humans (or even other humans) in cognitive abilities, then you cannot in good faith (being honest about what we know or don't know empirically) say that an LLM Is not conscious (and the same goes for an LLM thinking or having intelligence). It is more likely that humans made up a term (consciousness) to try to separate human intellect from that of other animals (for veiled religious and mystical reasons, along with concepts like "the soul") and now people are falling back into that flawed definition in new quasi-religious debates around AI (like the debate around evolution previously) that challenge our deeply held (but flawed) beliefs/opinions around our understanding of our own abilities and our incessant need to feel special/supreme in the universe so we don't have to come to terms with hard realities and nuanced understandings about the reality in which we live.