7 ms·

You're just defining intelligence as "undefined", which okay, now anything is anything. What is the point of that? Indeed, there's quite a lot of work that's b

You're just defining intelligence as "undefined", which okay, now anything is anything. What is the point of that? Indeed, there's quite a lot of work that's been done on what these terms mean. The fields of neuroscience and cognitive science have contributed a lot to the area, and obviously there are major areas of philosophy that discuss how we should frame the conversation or seek to answer questions. We have more than enough, trivially, to say that human intelligence is distinct, so long as we take on basic assertions like "intelligence is related to brain structures" since we know a lot about brain structures.

stavros 6mo ago
Our intelligence is related to brain structures, not all intelligence. You can't get to things like "what all intelligence, in general, is" from "what our intelligence is" any more than you can say that all food must necessarily be meat because sausages exist.
- staticassertion 6mo ago
  But... we're talking about our intelligence. So obviously it's quite relevant. I didn't say that AI isn't intelligent, I said that we have good reason to believe that our intelligence is unique. And we do, a lot of good evidence. I obviously don't believe that all intelligence is related to specific brain structure. Again, I'm a functionalist, so I believe that any structure that can exhibit the necessary functions would be equivalent in regards to intelligence. None of this would commit me to (a) human exceptionalism (b) LLMs/ Agents being intelligent (c) LLMs/ Agents being intelligent in the way that humans are.
  - stavros 6mo ago
    This is too dependent on what you mean by "unique", though. What do we have that apes don't, and which directly enables intelligence? What do we have that LLMs don't? What do LLMs have that we don't? I don't think we know enough to definitively say "it's this bit that gives us intelligence, and there's no way to have intelligence without it". We just see what we have, and what animals lack, and we say "well it's probably some of these things maybe".
    - staticassertion 6mo ago
      > What do we have that apes don't, and which directly enables intelligence? Again, there are multiple fields of study with tons of amazingly detailed answers to this. We know about specific proteins, specific brain structures, we know about specific cognitive capabilities in the abstract, etc. > What do we have that LLMs don't? Again, quite a lot is already known about this. This feels a bit like you're starting to explore this area and you're realizing that intelligence is complex, but you may not realize that others have already been doing this work and we have a litany of information on the topic. There are big open questions, of course, but we're definitely past the point of being able to say "there is a difference between human and ape intelligence" etc.
      - senordevnyc 6mo ago
        It'd probably be more productive for you to actually back up your claims with these things we know from neuroscience, rather than just stating that we know things, and so therefore you're right. What do we know? EDIT: can't reply, so I'll just update here: You're arguing that the mechanism that produces human intelligence is unique, so therefore the intelligence itself is somehow fundamentally different from the intelligence an LLM can produce. You haven't shown that, you just keep saying we know it's true. How do we know?
        staticassertion 6mo ago
        I don't need to do that unless you think that neurons interact exactly the way that LLMs do? That said, we have detailed, microscopic models of neurons, the ability to even simulate brain activity, intervention studies where we can make predictions, interact with brains in various ways, and then validate against predictions, we have cognitive benchmarks that we can apply to different animals or animals in different stages of development that we can then tie to specific brain states and brain development, etc. So we're in a very good position to say quite a lot about the brain, an incredible amount really. And that puts us in a very good position to say that our brain is very different from other animal brains, and certainly in a very good position to say that's very different from an LLM. Now, you can argue that an LLM is functionally equivalent to the brain, but given that it's so structurally distinct, and seemingly functions in a radically different way due to the nature of that structure, I'd put it on you to draw symmetries and provide evidence of that symmetry.

stavros 6mo ago

Our intelligence is related to brain structures, not all intelligence. You can't get to things like "what all intelligence, in general, is" from "what our intelligence is" any more than you can say that all food must necessarily be meat because sausages exist.

staticassertion 6mo ago
But... we're talking about our intelligence. So obviously it's quite relevant. I didn't say that AI isn't intelligent, I said that we have good reason to believe that our intelligence is unique. And we do, a lot of good evidence. I obviously don't believe that all intelligence is related to specific brain structure. Again, I'm a functionalist, so I believe that any structure that can exhibit the necessary functions would be equivalent in regards to intelligence. None of this would commit me to (a) human exceptionalism (b) LLMs/ Agents being intelligent (c) LLMs/ Agents being intelligent in the way that humans are.
- stavros 6mo ago
  This is too dependent on what you mean by "unique", though. What do we have that apes don't, and which directly enables intelligence? What do we have that LLMs don't? What do LLMs have that we don't? I don't think we know enough to definitively say "it's this bit that gives us intelligence, and there's no way to have intelligence without it". We just see what we have, and what animals lack, and we say "well it's probably some of these things maybe".
  - staticassertion 6mo ago
    > What do we have that apes don't, and which directly enables intelligence? Again, there are multiple fields of study with tons of amazingly detailed answers to this. We know about specific proteins, specific brain structures, we know about specific cognitive capabilities in the abstract, etc. > What do we have that LLMs don't? Again, quite a lot is already known about this. This feels a bit like you're starting to explore this area and you're realizing that intelligence is complex, but you may not realize that others have already been doing this work and we have a litany of information on the topic. There are big open questions, of course, but we're definitely past the point of being able to say "there is a difference between human and ape intelligence" etc.
    - senordevnyc 6mo ago
      It'd probably be more productive for you to actually back up your claims with these things we know from neuroscience, rather than just stating that we know things, and so therefore you're right. What do we know? EDIT: can't reply, so I'll just update here: You're arguing that the mechanism that produces human intelligence is unique, so therefore the intelligence itself is somehow fundamentally different from the intelligence an LLM can produce. You haven't shown that, you just keep saying we know it's true. How do we know?
      - staticassertion 6mo ago
        I don't need to do that unless you think that neurons interact exactly the way that LLMs do? That said, we have detailed, microscopic models of neurons, the ability to even simulate brain activity, intervention studies where we can make predictions, interact with brains in various ways, and then validate against predictions, we have cognitive benchmarks that we can apply to different animals or animals in different stages of development that we can then tie to specific brain states and brain development, etc. So we're in a very good position to say quite a lot about the brain, an incredible amount really. And that puts us in a very good position to say that our brain is very different from other animal brains, and certainly in a very good position to say that's very different from an LLM. Now, you can argue that an LLM is functionally equivalent to the brain, but given that it's so structurally distinct, and seemingly functions in a radically different way due to the nature of that structure, I'd put it on you to draw symmetries and provide evidence of that symmetry.