zlacker

LLMs are gigantic curves fitted to civilizational scale datasets. LLM predictions are based on this. A language model is a mathematical construct and can only be as intelligent as that Algebra book sitting on your shelf.

>>barlin+(OP)
>LLMs are gigantic curves fitted to civilizational scale datasets

>A language model is a mathematical construct

That is like telling someone from the Middle Ages that a gun is merely an assemblage of metal parts not too different from the horseshoes and cast-iron nails produced by your village blacksmith and consequently it is safe to give a child a loaded gun.

ADDED. Actually a better response (because it does not rely on an analogy) is to point out that none of the people who are upset over the possibility that most of the benefits of AI might accrue to a few tech titans and billionaires would be in the least bit re-assured by being told that an AI model is just a mathematical construct.

>>barlin+(OP)
An algebra book is a collection of paper pages with ink on them. An LLM is... nothing like that at all. LLMs are complex machines that operate on data and produce data. Books are completely static. They don't do anything.

Do you have a better analogy? I'd like to hear more about how ML models can't be intelligent, if you don't mind.

I'm pretty skeptical of the idea that we know enough at this point to make that claim definitively.

>>dwaltr+oo
> Books are completely static. They don't do anything.

Books (and writing) are a big force in cultural evolution.

>>andsoi+xh1
Yes, I love books. They are awesome. But we are talking about machine intelligence, so that's not super relevant.

Books aren't data/info-processing machines, by themselves. LLMs are.