Why is that API, as specified, not intelligent?

If your calculator could do everything you can do, as long as it fits through an API, I would call it intelligent, would you not?

I would not. See the Chinese Room thought experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

I know about the Chinese Room. The pivotal difference is that the intelligence is performing a mechanical task and none of its intelligence is inserted into the inputs. No synthesis is performed.

In the API example, it's literally people answering the queries with the answer they want. They're using their intelligence to synthesize the responses.

Props to him for predicting the future, but that's not an argument against LLMs having understanding. The Chinese Room has been invented and disproves his argument.

You have a very poor notion of intelligence. Mimicry does not require comprehension. Without comprehension (or, if you prefer self-awareness), you don't have intelligence. This distinction is as old as Eliza (look it up).

The Turing test still applies. Every time someone shows obvious nonsense from the LLMs, they fail Turing, again. You might get some mileage out of, "but people spout nonsense too," which leads to a legitimate claim for Artificial Stupidity if that makes you feel better.

Yes, if the LLMs could do everything I can do, they would be intelligent, but they can't, for any meaningful definition of 'everything'.

Most people can't do everything you can do (depending on what you mean by everything). They are still intelligent. Many animals are considered intelligent, like crows and dogs.

I show, in the article, at least one case where an LLM performs a task that requires comprehension of the concepts in the task. It doesn't require self-awareness though, neither does intelligence.

> Artificial Stupidity

Could you elaborate on this point?

> if that makes you feel better.

There is no need for this snark.