this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
65 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37717 readers
419 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jalda@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

That relies on human brains that are trained. LLMs are not human brains. “Training” them is not the same thing as teaching humans about something.

Circular reasoning. "LLMs are different from human brains because they are different".

Also, why did you felt compelled to add the adjective "human"? Don't you consider that gorillas, dolphins, octopuses or dogs are intelligent, capable of learn new things?

Human brains are way more complicated than just a bunch of weighed correlations.

And that is the problem of your argument. You seem to believe that intelligence is all-or-nothing, that anything that hasn't a human-level intelligence is not intelligent at all. Of course human brains are more complicated that current LLMs, nobody has ever disputed that. But concluding that they aren't and will never be intelligent because they aren't as complicated is a huge non-sequitur.