zlacker

>>vforgi+(OP)
I'm sad that we've lost the battle with calling these things AI. LLMs aren't AI, and I don't think they're even a path towards AI.

>>candid+gJ
If LLMs aren't AI nothing else is AI so far either

What exactly does AI mean to you?

>>shawab+L41
thanks for exemplifying the problem.

intelligence is what allows one to understand phrases and then construct meaning from it. e.g. the paper is yellow. AI will need to have a concept of paper and yellow. and the to be verb. LLMs just mash samples and form a basic map of what can be throw in one bucket or another with no concept of anything or understanding.

basically, AI is someone capable of minimal criticism. LLMs are someone who just sit in front of the tv and have knee jerk reactions without an ounce of analytical though. qed.

>>brkebd+5b1
LLMs absolutely have a concept of ‘yellow’ and ‘paper’ and the verb ‘to be’. They are nothing BUT a collection of mappings around language concepts. And their connotative and denotative meanings, their cultural associations, the contexts in which they arise and the things they can and cannot do. It knows that paper’s normally white and that post-it notes are often yellow; it knows that paper can be destroyed by burning or shredding or dissolving in water; it knows paper can be marked and drawn and written on and torn and used to write letters or folded to make origami cranes.

What kind of ‘understanding’ are you looking for?