Almost everyone here has used at least one LLM for fun or for work.
Many people here have paid for it.
They also said it about all the over-hyped tech that did not change the world. This mentality of “detractors prove something is good” is survivorship bias.
Note I’m not saying you’ll categorically be proven wrong, just that your argument isn’t particularly strong or valid.
LLMs are no different. Like DL modules that are very good at outputting images that mimic biological signatures, LLMs are very good at outputting texts that eerily mimic human language.
However — and this is a point which programmers are woefully and comically ignorant — human language and reason are two separate things. Tech bros wholly confuse the two however, and thus make outlandish claims we have achieved or are on the brink of achieving — actual AI systems.
In other words, while LLMs and DL in general can perform specific tasks well, they do not represent a breakthrough in artificial intelligence, and thus will have a much narrower application space than actual AI.
LLMs statistically imitates texts of real world. To achieve certain threshold of accuracy, it turns out they need to imitate the underlying Turing machine/program/logic that runs in our brains to understand/react properly to texts by ourselves. That is no longer in the realm of the old school data-as-data statistics I would say.
You're talking more about AGI.
We need "that's not AI" discussions like we need more "serverless? It's still on some server!!" discussions.
It's about meaning of intelligence. These people don't have problems claiming that ants or dolphins are intelligent, but suddenly for machines to be classified as artificial intelligence they must be exactly on the same level as humans.
Intelligence is just about the ability to solve problems. There's no implication that in order for something to be intelligent it has to perform on at least the same level as top people in that field in the World.
It just has to be beyond a simple algorithm and be able to solve some sort of problem. You have AIs in video games that are just bare logic spaghetti computation with no neural networks.
In other words, you’ve lost the argument.
Just stop trying to redefine AI as a term, you'll lose against the old hands and you'll lose against the marketing dept and you'll lose against the tech bros and nobody who you actually need to explain it to will care. Use AGI or some other common term for what you're clearly talking about.
... in the human brain which has evolved "cores" to handle each task optimally.
It's like the Turing Test. If it looks like it's reasoning, does it matter that it's doing it like a human brain or not?
The method is irrelevant. The output is what matters.
This is like a bunch of intelligent robots arguing that "mere meat" cannot possibly be intelligent!
https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think...
No one is talking about it being AGI. Everyone is talking about just AI specifically. I think your problem is thinking that AI = AGI.
For example AI in video games is very specific and narrow to its domain.
What a bizarre claim. If LLMs are not actually outputting language, why can I read what they output then? Why can I converse with it?
It's one thing to claim LLMs aren't reasoning, which is what you later do, but you're disconnected from reality if you think they aren't actually outputting language.
It will give you detailed examples that are much easier to follow than vague, error-prone spec docs. That's scratching the surface. Other people are far more creative than me and have used chat-gpt for mind-blowing stuff already. Whatever its doing passes for 'reasoning' and 'intelligence' in my book. To me it doesn't matter whether its the same kind of intelligence as a human or if there's any amount of awareness as those are both philosophical questions of no consequence to my work.
For what these pieces of tech can do I feel that they're drastically under-utilized.