> He sees it as being an extremely empty type of intelligence though. My instinctive reaction to claims like this is, is it really any different from humans? W

> He sees it as being an extremely empty type of intelligence though. My instinctive reaction to claims like this is, is it really any different from humans? Why? Current LLMs have a lot of limitations. The pretraining without the ability to learn beyond their context is a big one. Every prompt is literally instantiating a new instance of the intelligence. If you take these limitations into account, it's not at all clear to me that they're all that different from humans when it comes to the fundamentals: we learn from training data, we respond according to what we've learned. In fact, many humans resemble the pretrained model quite closely - they do most of their learning in their early years, and don't update much after that except in relatively limited ways. You do get lifelong learners, but they're the exception. Taking all this into account, why is the one kind of intelligence "extremely empty" whereas the other is not? Is this not just anti-machine bias when it comes to intelligence?