A much better framework for thinking about intelligence is simply as the ability to make predictions about the world (including conditional ones like "what will happen if we take this action"). Whether it's achieved through "true understanding" (however you define it; I personally doubt you can) or "mimicking" bears no relevance for most of the questions about the impact of AI we are trying to answer.
Currently many of our legal systems are set up this way, if in a fairly arbitrary fashion. Consider for example how sentience is used as a metric for whether an animal ought to receive additional rights. Or how murder (which requires deliberate, conscious thought) is punished more harshly than manslaughter (which can be accidental or careless.)
If we just treat intelligence as a descriptive quality and apply it to LLMs, we quickly realize the absurdity of saying a chatbot is somehow equivalent, consciously, to a human being. At least, to me it seems absurd. And it indicates the flaws of grafting human consciousness onto machines without analyzing why.
The most depressing thing about AI summers is watching tech people cynically try to define intelligence downwards to excuse failures in current AI.
He made it because he predicted that it will have some effects enjoyable to him. Without knowing David Lynch personally I can assume that he made it because he predicted other people will like it. Although of course, it might have been some other goal. But unless he was completely unlike anyone I've ever met, it's safe to assume that before he started he had a picture of a world with Mullholland Drive existing in it that is somehow better than the current world without. He might or might not have been aware of it though.
Anyway, that's too much analysis of Mr. Lynch. The implicit question is how soon an AI will be able to make a movie that you, AIPedant, will enjoy as much as you've enjoyed Mulholland Drive. And I stand that how similar AI is to human intelligence or how much "true understanding" it has is completely irrelevant to answering that question.
It's clear that humans consider humans as intelligent. Is a monkey intelligent? A dolphin? A crow? An ant?
So I ask you, what is the lowest form of intelligence to you?
(I'm also a huge David Lynch fan by the way :D)
A prediction is just a reaction to a present state, which is the simplest definition of intelligence: The ability to (sense and) react to something. I like to use this definition, instead of "being able to predict", because its more generic.
The more sophisticated (and directed) the reaction is, the more intelligent the system must be. Following this logic, even a traffic light is intelligent, at least more intelligent than a simple rock.
From that perspective, the question of why a creator produced a piece of art becomes unimportant to determine intelligence, since the simple fact that he did is sign of intelligence already.
Reductive arguments may not give us an immediate forward path to reproducing these emergent phenomena in artificial brains, but it's also the case that emergent phenomena are by definition impossible to predict - I don't think anyone predicted the current behaviours of LLMs for example.
It also happens to be a leading theory in neuroscience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45058056
The only real and measurable thing is performance. And the performance of AI systems only goes up.
> Language doesn't just describe reality; it creates it.
I wonder if this is a statement from the discussed paper or from the blog author. Haven't found the original paper yet, but this blog post very much makes me want to read it.
I never under stand these kinds of statements.
Does the sun not exist until we have a word for it, did "under the rock" not exist for dinosaurs?
Think of it this way, though: the divisions that humans make between objects in the world are largely linguistic ones. For example, we say that the Earth is such-and-such an ecosystem with certain species occupying it. But this is more like a convenient shorthand, not a totally accurate description of reality. A more accurate description would be something like, ever-changing organisms undergo this complex process that we call evolution, and are all continually changing, so much so that the species concept is not really that clear, once you dig into it.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/
Where it really gets interesting, IMO, is when these divisions (which originally were mostly just linguistic categories) start shaping what's actually in the world. The concept of property is a good example. Originally it's just a legal term, but over time, it ends up reshaping the actual face of the earth, ecosystems, wars, migrations, on and on.
I partially agree, but the idea about AI is that you need to bump into things and hurt yourself only once. Then you have a good driver you can replicate at will
Melanie Mitchell (2021) "Why AI is Harder Than We Think." https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12871
That sentence is not from this paper.
I don't get the problem with this really. I think LLM's "reasoning" is a very fair and proper way to call it. It takes time and spits out tokens that it recursively uses to get a much better output than it otherwise would have. Is it actually really reasoning using a brain like a human would? No. But it is close enough so I don't see the problem calling it "reasoning". What's the fuss about?
I'd say, no, they aren't, and there is value in understanding the different processes (and labeling them as such), even if they have outputs that look similar/identical.
Reasoning models are simply answering the same question twice with a different system prompt. It's a normal LLM with an extra technical step. Nothing else.
This reminds me Douglas Hofstadter, of the Gödel, Escher, Bach fame. He rejected all of this statistical approaches towards creating intelligence and dug deep into the workings of human mind [1]. Often, in the most eccentric ways possible.
> ... he has bookshelves full of these notebooks. He pulls one down—it’s from the late 1950s. It’s full of speech errors. Ever since he was a teenager, he has captured some 10,000 examples of swapped syllables (“hypodeemic nerdle”), malapropisms (“runs the gambit”), “malaphors” (“easy-go-lucky”), and so on, about half of them committed by Hofstadter himself.
>
> For Hofstadter, they’re clues. “Nobody is a very reliable guide concerning activities in their mind that are, by definition, subconscious,” he once wrote. “This is what makes vast collections of errors so important. In an isolated error, the mechanisms involved yield only slight traces of themselves; however, in a large collection, vast numbers of such slight traces exist, collectively adding up to strong evidence for (and against) particular mechanisms.”
I don't know when, where, and how the next leap in AGI will come through, but it's just very likely, it will be through brute-force computation (unfortunately). So much for fifty years of observing Freudian slips.
[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man...
I think he gets into a muddle on that one. If something online can provide smarter thinking and answers to questions than I can then I figure it's intelligent and it doesn't matter if it's an LLM, a human or a disembodied spirit that somehow happens to be online.
He kind of gets that from human minds not being disembodied from their brains but that's a different thing.
That's not what it says, but that hand-made heuristics are defeated by general methods. There is no reason why the same methods should not perform even better when informed by data through interacting with the world.
That is also a fallacy from being too immersed in a professional environment filled with deep reasoning and a deep rooted tradition of logic.
In the greater human civilization you will find an abundance of individuals lacking both reasoning and common sense.
> Mitchell in her paper compares modern AI to alchemy. It produces dazzling, impressive results but it often lacks a deep, foundational theory of intelligence.
> It’s a powerful metaphor, but I think a more pragmatic conclusion is slightly different. The challenge isn't to abandon our powerful alchemy in search of a pure science of intelligence.
But alchemy was wrong and chasing after the illusions created by the frauds who promoted alchemy held back the advancement of science for a long time.
We absolutely should have abandoned alchemy as soon as we saw that it didn't work, and moved to figuring out the science of what worked.
Yet alchemists developed and refined many important chemical processes including crystallization, distillation, evaporation, synthesis of acids/bases/salts, etc., as well as many useful substances and compounds from gunpowder to aqua regia. Also various dyes, drugs, and poisons. Their ranks included the likes of Paracelsus, Tycho Brahe, Boyle, and Newton.
https://home.cern/news/news/physics/alice-detects-conversion...
Alchemy helped to create chemistry. I think that's often how science works, the models improves over time.
they don't need to reach equal human intelligence, the just need to reach an acceptable of intelligence so corporation can reduce labor cost
sure it bad at certain things but you know what ??? most of real world job didn't need a genius either
The core misconception here is that LLMs are autonomous agents parroting away. No, they are connected to humans, tools, reference data, and validation systems. They are in a dialogue, and in a dialogue you quickly get into a place where nobody has ever been before. Take any 10 consecutive words from a human or LLM and chances are nobody on the internet stringed those words the same way before.
LLMs are more like pianos than parrots, or better yet, like another musician jamming together with you, creating something together that none would do individually. We play our prompts on the keyboard and they play their "music" back to us. Good or bad - depends on the player at the keyboard, they retain most control. To say LLMs are Stochastic Parrots is to discount the contribution of the human using it.
Related to intelligence, I think we have a misconception that it comes from the brain. No, it comes from the feedback loop between brain and environment. The environment plays a huge role in exploration, learning, testing ideas, and discovery. The social aspect also plays a big role, parallelizing exploration and streamlining exploitation of discoveries. We are not individually intelligent, it is a social, environment based process, not a pure-brain process.
Searching for intelligence in the brain is like searching for art in the paint pigments and canvas cloth.
However, almost all models (worst is ChatGPT) are made virtually useless in this respect, since they are basically sycophantic yesmen - why on earth does an ”autocorrect on steroids” pretend to laugh at my jokes?
Next step is not to built faster models or throw more computing power at them, bit to learn to play the piano.
This is not the case for LLMs. We don't know what the full state space looks like. Just because the state space that LLMs (lossily) compress, is unimaginably huge, doesn't mean that you can assume that the state you want is one of them. So yeah, you might get a string of symbols that nobody has seen before, but you still have no way of knowing whether A) it's the string of symbols you wanted, and B) if it isn't, whether the string of symbols you wanted can ever be generated by the network at all.
Time will tell. You take that output, use it, and see the outcomes. That's exactly how brains work too. We don't spark knowledge from our brains, it comes from environment observation.
Question for the author: how are SOTA LLM models not common sense machines?
> Its [Large Language Models] ability to write code and summarize text feels like a qualitative leap in generality that the monkey-and-moon analogy doesn't quite capture. This leaves us with a forward-looking question: How do recent advances in multimodality and agentic AI test the boundaries of this fallacy? Does a model that can see and act begin to bridge the gap toward common sense, or is it just a more sophisticated version of the same narrow intelligence? Are world models a true step towards AGI or just a higher branch in a tree of narrow linguistic intelligence?
I'd put the expression common sense on the same level as having causal connections, and would also assume that SOTA LLMs do not create an understanding based on causality. AFAICS this is known as the "reversal curse"[0].
But LLMs achieve both your condition and mine. The attention network makes the causal connections that you speak of, while the multi-layer perceptions store and extract facts that respond to the mix of attention.
It is not commonly described as such, but I think “common sense engine” is a far better description of what a GPT-based LLM is doing than mere next word prediction.
Someone should let Waymo, Zoox, Pony.ai, Apollo Go, and even Tesla know!
Re: Tesla, this company paid me nearly $250,000 under multiple lemon law claims for their “self driving” software issues i identified that affected safety.
We all know what happened with Cruise, which was after i declared myself constructively dismissed.
I think the characterization in the article is fair, “self driving” is not quite there yet.
I honestly didnt understand the arguments. Could someone TLDR please ?
The same terms exist in other fields. Physics has things that want to go to a lower energy level, the ball wants to fall but the table is holding it up. Electrons don't like being near each other, The hugs boson puts on little bunny ears and goes around giving mass to all the other good particles.
None of these are said in any way as a suggestion that these things have any form of intention.
They also don't in AI. When scientists really think those abilities are there in a provable way (or even if they suspect), I can assure you that they will be prepared to make it crystal clear that this is what they are claiming. Critisising the use of metaphor is kind of a pre-emptive attack against claims that might be made in the future.
Some AI scientists believe that there is a degree of awareness in recent models. They may be right or wrong but the ones who believe this are outright saying so.
I'm also inclined, if you'll excuse the term, to be critical of anything suggesting the assumption of smooth progress when they declare something to be the first step. Steps are not smooth. That's a good example of ignoring the what of the metaphor.
I don't really know what to make about the embodiment position, it feels like it's trying to hide dualism behind a practical limitation. Once you start drilling down into the why/why not and what do you mean by that, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the expectation that you can't train an AI because it doesn't have a soul
I agree with xkcd 1425 though.
A lot of people really, really don't want LLMs to be "actually intelligent", so they oppose any use of any remotely "anthropomorphic" terms in application to LLMs on that principle alone.
IMO, anthropomorphizing LLMs is at least directionally correct in 9 cases out of 10.
What matters is how we design governance that acknowledges uncertainty while still enabling progress. In practice, that means imperfect but adaptive frameworks — guardrails that evolve as technology and society evolve.
Instead of asking “which fallacy is right,” we might ask: how do we build systems that remain trustworthy even when our assumptions about AI turn out to be wrong?
