> it's actually just maths essentially mirroring the dataset

And your brain is just water and fat conducting electrical signals. Also, modern AI doesn't mirror the training dataset, that's not how LLMs work, it's only true for the initial pretraining phase. But that's besides the point.

What matters is what it can and can't do. Whether you label it as intelligence or not is pretty inconsequential long term.

I often hear the argument that "it’s just mathematics," and therefore not intelligent. Yet, the universe in which we exist is also "just mathematics," and we clearly consider ourselves to be intelligent. It therefore seems obvious to me that intelligence can emerge from "just mathematics." The real question is how complex the underlying mathematics needs to be. In our brains, we have actual cells that form a complex neural network via synapses, dendrites, and so on. But is this level of complexity—which also manages the supply of nutrients to the cells—truly necessary for intelligence? Or, to put it another way: to what extent can this structure be simplified?

In my view, language models certainly exhibit a form of intelligence. Judging by the results, they grasp my input—or rather, my intent—and adapt their decisions based on dynamic input from various tools to address problems for which the solutions are not pre-programmed. I consider that a form of intelligence.

A completely different question, however, concerns consciousness, needs, and emotions. A language model doesn't feel a sense of satisfaction upon completing a task; it simply asks if there is anything else it can do or you just open a new prompt.

> Everyone around is calling it intelligence wherein it's actually just maths essentially mirroring the dataset. It's not at all intelligent.

Do you consider yourself intelligent, and did you derive everything you know from first principles or are you just mirroring the cumulative subject matter that you've been taught and read? if a black box that can mimic that, is that intelligent.

Curiosity and Creativity is what sets apart humans from machines, not an output that depends on the corpus that has been fed.

> did you derive everything you know from first principles or are you just mirroring the cumulative subject matter that you've been taught and read?

Neither. There are other options.

I derived some things I know from first principles, and I sometimes mirror the cumulative subject matter that I've been taught and read.

interesting, ig we have freedom to play with our thoughts n knowledge and to come to certain opinions that tend to change how we think/output. whereas AI can do that only when prompted.

ig we need to introduce imagination/dreaming/sleeping in them where they can learn from themselves

No, there's no point. A lot of people already believe that AI is intelligent and they won't accept any arguments to the contrary regardless of how they are framed. There is no objective definition of intelligence, we don't know exactly how LLMs operate, nor do we know exactly how the human brain operates, but people will state with absolute certainty that LLMs operate in exactly the same way as the human brain and are, therefore, human equivalent if not human superior.

It's a religious argument, a matter of faith. You can't argue logic with faith. They'll just call you a fool and a Luddite, waste your time demanding strict definitions they themselves are never required to make and simplistic false equivalences between humans and AI ("but humans also x") because they believe you're a simpleton for not grasping what they consider self-evident and obvious, that all of your objections come from a place of fear and primitive superstition.

You're just wasting your time.

lol i kinda agree, this is generation 1 of AI, they just scaled and market it as intelligent, although that's helpful to complete repetitive tasks like coding but to do something entirely new, AI just plays with sophisticated language there.

some say its a new species XD

It's all the worst aspects of the crypto-bros/NFT set combined with all the worse aspects of flat-earthers and creationists to make the most insufferable bullshit sandwich ever.

that's the reason for the bubble lol, they really did convince the masses

Intelligence is the ability to make accurate predictions based on past observations.

but how do you decide what to predict? for ex- when a human doesn't prompt, it won't predict.

you are just atoms and yet you think

is it really us that think or observe the thinking?

Please expand on this.

thoughts just show up and we notice them after, so imo we're the observer, not the doer. LLMs do the doer part well by mirroring human data, but there's no observer.

I feel building metacognition into current architectures might be what gets us to AGI

Cool stuff. Inspired by [1], our brains observe by taking a measurement, which collapses the billiard ball's color to be red, "instantaneous velocity."

While otherwise unattended, the billiard ball only has metadata about its original color, but is otherwise every color and no color (to us). The physics are only computed separate from maximal energy conservation.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50410122

interesting parallel there, maybe that will solve the blackbox part if we hv self-observability in them