5 ms·

The point is that you're asking someone to prove a negative.

red75prime 1mo ago
It's a negative in your worldview where "intelligence can't be a computation" is an axiom or something close. To me this worldview is sloppy thinking.
- buttercraft 1mo ago
  I did not express my opinion or "worldview." I was simply responding to this: > exclude LLMs with CoT from the category of intelligent systems with certainty
  - red75prime 1mo ago
    Why do you think that intelligence of a Turing-complete system trained on human data can be likened to a Russell's teapot? At least, don't you think that the recent mathematical results of LLMs are a bit like a glimpse of something teapot-shaped in the orbit? (which makes it not a Russell's teapot, which. by definition, can't be observed). To me, it's an expected progression of ANNs' approximation of human cognitive processes. The universal approximation theorem guaranties the existence of such ANNs barring the super-Turing or quantum superiority of the brain.
    - buttercraft 1mo ago
      > Why do you think that intelligence of a Turing-complete system trained on human data can be likened to a Russell's teapot? I don't? You are presenting opinions as if they are mine, but they are not.
      - red75prime 1mo ago
        I'm trying to understand what's going on in the head of people who are certain that LLMs can't be intelligent. And it proves to be a daunting task. Have you tried to reflect on your certainty? Where it comes from?
- emp17344 1mo ago
  We have reason to believe consciousness cannot be replicated via computation, and reason to suspect consciousness is an important aspect of cognition. Now, what reason do you have for believing intelligence could be replicated computationally?
vouwfietsman 1mo ago
Right, it follows naturally that one can never meaningfully discuss that which can only be settled by proving negatives. Hence the total lack of debate on religious topics, as everyone just gave up 1500 years ago and decided that God indeed may or may not exist and that's that.

It's a negative in your worldview where "intelligence can't be a computation" is an axiom or something close. To me this worldview is sloppy thinking.

buttercraft 1mo ago
I did not express my opinion or "worldview." I was simply responding to this: > exclude LLMs with CoT from the category of intelligent systems with certainty
- red75prime 1mo ago
  Why do you think that intelligence of a Turing-complete system trained on human data can be likened to a Russell's teapot? At least, don't you think that the recent mathematical results of LLMs are a bit like a glimpse of something teapot-shaped in the orbit? (which makes it not a Russell's teapot, which. by definition, can't be observed). To me, it's an expected progression of ANNs' approximation of human cognitive processes. The universal approximation theorem guaranties the existence of such ANNs barring the super-Turing or quantum superiority of the brain.
  - buttercraft 1mo ago
    > Why do you think that intelligence of a Turing-complete system trained on human data can be likened to a Russell's teapot? I don't? You are presenting opinions as if they are mine, but they are not.
    - red75prime 1mo ago
      I'm trying to understand what's going on in the head of people who are certain that LLMs can't be intelligent. And it proves to be a daunting task. Have you tried to reflect on your certainty? Where it comes from?
emp17344 1mo ago
We have reason to believe consciousness cannot be replicated via computation, and reason to suspect consciousness is an important aspect of cognition. Now, what reason do you have for believing intelligence could be replicated computationally?

vouwfietsman 1mo ago

Right, it follows naturally that one can never meaningfully discuss that which can only be settled by proving negatives. Hence the total lack of debate on religious topics, as everyone just gave up 1500 years ago and decided that God indeed may or may not exist and that's that.