"Descartes denied that animals had reason or intelligence. He argued that animals did not lack sensations or perceptions, but these could be explained mechanistically. Whereas humans had a soul, or mind, and were able to feel pain and anxiety, animals by virtue of not having a soul could not feel pain or anxiety. If animals showed signs of distress then this was to protect the body from damage, but the innate state needed for them to suffer was absent."

Your comment brings up the challenge of defining intelligence and sentience, especially with these new LLMs shaking things up, even for HN commenters.

It's tough to define these terms in a way that includes only humans and excludes other life forms or even LLMs. This might mean we either made up these concepts, or we're not alone in having these traits.

Without a solid definition, how can we say LLMs aren't intelligent? If we make a definition that includes both us and LLMs, would we accept them as intelligent? And could we even exclude ourselves?

We need clear definitions to talk about the intelligence and sentience of LLMs, AI, or any life forms. But finding those definitions is hard, and it might clash with our human ego. Discussing these terms without definitions feels like a waste of time.

Still, your Descartes reference reminds us that our understanding of human experiences keeps changing, and our current definitions might not be spot-on.

(this comment was cleaned up with GPT-4 :D)

It's a charade, it mimics intelligence. Let's take it ine step further... Suppose it mimics it so well that it becomes indistinguishable for any human from being intelligent. Then still it would not be intelligent, one could argue. But in that case you could also argue that no person is intelligent. The point being, intelligence cannot be defined. And, just maybe, that is the case because intelligence is not a reality, just something we made up.

Objective measures of intelligence are easy to come up with. The LSAT is one. (Not a great one -- GPT-4 passes it, after all -- but an objective one.)

Consciousness, on the other hand, really might be an illusion.