undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdiscreteevent2y ago0 comments

Parent is saying that with something as sophisticated as intelligence it's not enough to say that if it behaves like a duck it's a duck (which is what your seem to be saying and which the parent calls a 0-day).

There are some really good bulshitters who have led smart people into deep trouble. These bulshitters behaved really like ducks but they weren't ducks. The duck test just isn't good enough.

The -1 day is where people say that because LLMs behave like humans then humans must be based on the same tech. I just wonder if these people have ever debugged a complex system only to discover that their initial model of how it worked was way off.

0 comments

gitfan862y ago

That is a new definition of intelligence that you are using. You are saying that even when something can outperform humans in the SAT or other tests of intelligence, it isn't actually intelligent due to it not being a carbon based lifeform

Xelynega2y ago

Outperforming on the SAT(a test that the model was trained on) doesn't seem like a marker of intelligence as much as it is of recall.

discreteeventOP2y ago

No. I gave the example of a bullshitter - who is usually a carbon based life form.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse