this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
50 points (78.4% liked)

Asklemmy

44308 readers
1566 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Wondering if Modern LLMs like GPT4, Claude Sonnet and llama 3 are closer to human intelligence or next word predictor. Also not sure if this graph is right way to visualize it.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Are you interested in this from a philosophical perspective or from a practical perspective?

From a philosophical perspective:

It depends on what you mean by "intelligent". People have been thinking about this for millennia and have come up with different answers. Pick your preference.

From a practical perspective:

This is where it gets interesting. I don't think we'll have a moment where we say "ok now the machine is intelligent". Instead, it will just slowly and slowly take over more and more jobs, by being good at more and more tasks. And just so, in the end, it will take over a lot of human jobs. I think people don't like to hear it due to the fear of unemployedness and such, but I think that's a realistic outcome.

[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Imo, which is backed a bit by some pretty new studies, not only do LLMs not have intelligence at all, they are incapable of it.

Human intelligence and conciousness likely has a lot to do with nanotubes that trigger quantum wave function collapse, and allow for decision making. Computers simply do not function in this way. Computers are processing machines. They have logic gates with 2 states. 101101110011 binary logic.

If new studies related to nanotubes are right biological brains are simply operating on an entirely diffetent level and playing by a different set of rules than computers. Its not a issue of getting the software right, or getting more processing power. Its an issue of physical capability of the machine to perform certain functions.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 months ago

I'm going to say x=7, y=10. The sum x+y is not 10, because choosing the next word accurately in a complex passage is hard. The x is 7, just based on my gut guess about how smart they are - by different empirical measures it could be 2 or 40.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I hold a very strong hypothesis, which I’ve not seen any data contradict yet, that intelligence is only possible with formal language and symbolics and therefore formal language and intelligence is very hard to separate. I don’t think one created the other; they evolved together.

Yeah I think the human brain is a vehicle for "mind virus" which is script and ideas.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›