5 ms·

> the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason Agentic systems do this all the time. For example, I can point

> the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason Agentic systems do this all the time. For example, I can point an agent at my codebase, and it will learn, understand, and make judgements based on that input. If this weren't happening, then agentic coding wouldn't work.

chrisjj 25d ago
You've been fooled by a next-token predictor.
- birdsongs 25d ago
  Does it matter whether it meets the criteria of what you define as "intelligent" when the "next token predictor" throws a backdoor into openssh?
  - chrisjj 25d ago
    No. But no-one is seriously suggesting intelligence is needed for persistent code fuzzing. Just as no-one is suggesting its needed for computerised chess.
- Yiin 25d ago
  all your actions in current context are based on your past actions and experience, so for all I know you're next token predictor as well, but likely with exponentially more parameters
- ben_w 25d ago
  I read all these think-pieces about how AI lack intelligence, yet I cannot help but notice these "not-intelligent machines" keep doing more things that used to be considered "uniquely human" and which humans used to do in order to demonstrate to each other how intelligent we are.
- infinite_spin 25d ago
  And yet this "next-token predictor" is able to churn out well tested, valuable solutions, to complex problems. If you want to downplay that as nothing more than a fancy auto-complete, be my guest, I lose nothing from that.
  - nkrisc 25d ago
    But that’s a different bar. “Not intelligent” does not necessarily imply “not useful”.
    - infinite_spin 24d ago
      As pointed out in a previous comment of mine, it meets the definition of "intelligent", my last response is regarding the claim that I've been "fooled". Are we going in circles now?
  - chrisjj 25d ago
    > And yet this "next-token predictor" is able to churn out well tested, valuable solutions, to complex problems. Same for countless computer programs from Excel to Google web search. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Throw an unimaginable amount of computer power at a problem, and there will always be people who cannot imagine the results to be anything but the creations of intelligence.
    - infinite_spin 24d ago
      That's like comparing a self driving car to a bicycle. One is clearly more intelligent than the other.
- Kim_Bruning 25d ago
  > You've been fooled by a next-token predictor. I also have a so called "pocket calculator" left over from when I went to school. Is this false? Have I been fooled by a little box of logic gates? That half-adder circuit in there is especially suss. It's really just manipulating 1s and 0s, but -and I've been explicitly told this- no one cares how it actually does it; so long as the truth table matches up. There is no understanding of mathematics going on. There is no single transistor in the whole thing that knows how to do so much as add 1+1. If I put it in the chinese room, I still wouldn't know how it did it. Clearly the entire premise must be false! ;-)
  - Kim_Bruning 25d ago
    I'm going to add this as a separate comment: These kinds of stories probably read very differently for someone who uses Opus and Fable agents all day and goes "ohhh, I saw this in miniature last week; this and this and this must have happened" , vs someone who tried free-tier Gemini flash one rainy Sunday, got hallucinated at, and concludes it must all be a scam.
    - chrisjj 24d ago
      Probably everything reads very differently to someone who talks to chatbots all day.
      - Kim_Bruning 24d ago
        > Probably everything reads very differently to someone who talks to chatbots all day. A chatbot is a particular kind of harness. Typically an LLM driving a chatbot won't be able to hack very much. So we agree, someone who talks to bad chatbots all day probably has a very different view of SOTA agents. :-P
      - infinite_spin 24d ago
        Please stop dropping backhanded insults to other people here. It's not productive and violates guidelines.
  - 25d ago

chrisjj 25d ago

You've been fooled by a next-token predictor.

birdsongs 25d ago
Does it matter whether it meets the criteria of what you define as "intelligent" when the "next token predictor" throws a backdoor into openssh?
- chrisjj 25d ago
  No. But no-one is seriously suggesting intelligence is needed for persistent code fuzzing. Just as no-one is suggesting its needed for computerised chess.
Yiin 25d ago
all your actions in current context are based on your past actions and experience, so for all I know you're next token predictor as well, but likely with exponentially more parameters
ben_w 25d ago
I read all these think-pieces about how AI lack intelligence, yet I cannot help but notice these "not-intelligent machines" keep doing more things that used to be considered "uniquely human" and which humans used to do in order to demonstrate to each other how intelligent we are.
infinite_spin 25d ago
And yet this "next-token predictor" is able to churn out well tested, valuable solutions, to complex problems. If you want to downplay that as nothing more than a fancy auto-complete, be my guest, I lose nothing from that.
- nkrisc 25d ago
  But that’s a different bar. “Not intelligent” does not necessarily imply “not useful”.
  - infinite_spin 24d ago
    As pointed out in a previous comment of mine, it meets the definition of "intelligent", my last response is regarding the claim that I've been "fooled". Are we going in circles now?
- chrisjj 25d ago
  > And yet this "next-token predictor" is able to churn out well tested, valuable solutions, to complex problems. Same for countless computer programs from Excel to Google web search. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Throw an unimaginable amount of computer power at a problem, and there will always be people who cannot imagine the results to be anything but the creations of intelligence.
  - infinite_spin 24d ago
    That's like comparing a self driving car to a bicycle. One is clearly more intelligent than the other.
Kim_Bruning 25d ago
> You've been fooled by a next-token predictor. I also have a so called "pocket calculator" left over from when I went to school. Is this false? Have I been fooled by a little box of logic gates? That half-adder circuit in there is especially suss. It's really just manipulating 1s and 0s, but -and I've been explicitly told this- no one cares how it actually does it; so long as the truth table matches up. There is no understanding of mathematics going on. There is no single transistor in the whole thing that knows how to do so much as add 1+1. If I put it in the chinese room, I still wouldn't know how it did it. Clearly the entire premise must be false! ;-)
- Kim_Bruning 25d ago
  I'm going to add this as a separate comment: These kinds of stories probably read very differently for someone who uses Opus and Fable agents all day and goes "ohhh, I saw this in miniature last week; this and this and this must have happened" , vs someone who tried free-tier Gemini flash one rainy Sunday, got hallucinated at, and concludes it must all be a scam.
  - chrisjj 24d ago
    Probably everything reads very differently to someone who talks to chatbots all day.
    - Kim_Bruning 24d ago
      > Probably everything reads very differently to someone who talks to chatbots all day. A chatbot is a particular kind of harness. Typically an LLM driving a chatbot won't be able to hack very much. So we agree, someone who talks to bad chatbots all day probably has a very different view of SOTA agents. :-P
    - infinite_spin 24d ago
      Please stop dropping backhanded insults to other people here. It's not productive and violates guidelines.
- 25d ago