Is a robot that can walk, throw and catch is intelligent?
Last day there was a robot that can play ping pong? Is that intelligent?
We also see robots excel at chess and go, is that not intelligent? Why not? Given that's the mental opposite of the physical examples you're happy to discard (side note: I've done real world robotics development, I'd call walking/catching/throwing considerably more difficult activities than chess/go, and much closer to intelligence).
We see LLMs absolutely blow through the turing test, and that was literally the philosophical "gold standard" for machines that exhibit human-like intelligence for like 70 years.
So I really don't think I'm "getting it all very wrong" - I think this is a fundamental question that you're basically failing to honestly engage with because you've already made up your mind.
So again - define intelligence?
huh? In the comment above you said you would argue that it is. So is that not your argument?
>I'd call walking/catching/throwing considerably more difficult activities than chess/go, and much closer to intelligence
This is an even bizarre idea. I get that those things are harder to implement in a robot since it requires extremely fine sensors and motor control. But that making it closer to intelligence? That does not make a lot of sense..
Just because we cannot exactly define intelligence does not mean that you can call any arbitrary thing intelligent!
Why? It requires understanding a complex sense of self: where am I? How can I move? how do I fit within the environment? How can I change the environment?
Understanding, reasoning, self-awareness, and planning are all considered core aspects of intelligence, and those are all on display during navigation and locomotion.
I'd suggest those are all much closer to intelligence than the rules of chess. More complicated, too.
> Just because we cannot exactly define intelligence does not mean that you can call any arbitrary thing intelligent!
And just because intelligence appears alien in nature to you, doesn't mean it's not there... An ant only has ~250,000 neurons (far less than an LLM) are ants not intelligent? Not at all?
So if you define intelligence simply as "human", then sure - LLMs aren't that. But I also think that's an uninteresting and banal conclusion.
---
So my core point remains - define intelligent. I think it's surprisingly hard to do in a way that rules out LLMs, but doesn't also rule out large categories of things we do probably agree are intelligent.
These does not require any general intelligence or understanding and can be expressed as a bunch of fixed rules.
>I think it's surprisingly hard to do in a way that rules out LLMs,
May be. But we sure can say that LLMs are not "reasoning". Which is what I have done in the linked comment.
