>I would like to start with a thank you to you. I must thank you though for your participation in the discussion even though we have quite different and essentially opposing views. Your points have given rise for an opportunity to clarify my own position and to think more deeply about your particular claims, even if your evidence is lacking in many ways. There are many who think like you and who are not at all willing to participate in such a discussion. So again I thank you for that and appreciate the time and effort you have taken in your responses.

No need to dispense with this bs. Just talk your point.

>> Irrelevant. How something was created or formed is irrelevant to the intelligence it possesses.

>> Wrong these things are not programmed. They are "trained" and fed information through a "learning" algorithm

>and then you disagree with yourself while still keeping in the same naturalistic epistemological framework with

Where the hell is the disagreement? If I used magic to create the same neural network it would STILL be intelligent. How something was made intelligent is irrelevant to the fact that it is intelligent. I am simply correcting a wrong statement you made about how LLMs are created.

>Here you are arguing from the fallacy of authority and you are not at all demonstrating that this is the case for ALL researchers in this field.

You're being pedantic. Majority to the point where nearly ALL researchers agree.

>You make a claim and yet do not actually address any argument I make. The best you seem to be able to do is say something like:

You assumed I had no children. Utterly wrong assumption. The subject of the claim is made in reference to the context in which the statement is replying to. Common sense should be able to help you figure that out. Apparently you made an error here.

>and actually show me that it is you who has failed to think deeply the subject. There are so many questions that you have simply brushed away and you have allowed yourself to think shallowly about what you see. There are many many things that are being investigated by the methods of scientific investigation. The problem that is being found in all sorts of areas is that we see anomalies arising that cannot be explained by our current crop of theories and models. This is actually normal and the basic idea that we have to adjust to is that none of our theories or models is correct. They are all wrong.

You'll note my claim is actually fully correct. You didn't deny that. You think "magic" is part of intelligence.

Anomalies aren't worth discussing because by nature of the word, we don't understand what's going on. Everything discussed here is speculation. Logically Analyze the world based off of what we know for the most likely answer.

>It is an exciting time to be alive as we can see the potential for breakthroughs in understanding and knowledge. Where we have to be careful is not to get caught up in the hype that does occur. Artificial Stupidity systems are one such area where the hype is extraordinary and the reality is actually being missed.

What I see mostly is artificial stupidity being in denial. Adamant beliefs that LLMS display zero intelligence and are regurgitating facts when the proof of novel answers is right in front of your eyes.

>If you want to think that such systems are intelligent then do so. But you have an enormous uphill battle to prove that. I have thought of a number of questions for you to investigate, but as you have already shown me that you consider such questions as irrelevant, I won't put them before you.

It's already been proven. The stupid part is convincing the people refusing to believe factual data. The text I posted is already logical proof.

>The exciting part here is that with more data collected, we have the opportunity to see if there are better theories and models that explain what we see.

So? The current crop of knowledge provides the best explanation we have. Just because you speculate on the potential of future data to rewrite existing ideas doesn't change that. Our current best and most likely explanation is based off of current data. You go speculating into metaphysics it becomes ideas based off of nothing and no data. Go with the best.

>In fact, the analysis, though very interesting does not show that it is due to machine intelligence. I have spent years analysing data, building analysis systems and having discussions with other people who are involved in machine learning. The intelligence exhibited is human and not machine. It boils down to something very simple, the only reason these systems exist is because we make them. They have not come about without human intelligence and they cannot progress without human intelligence directing that advancement.

Utterly wrong about researchers. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/why-neural-net... Father of modern AI who revolutionized AI knows these things are intelligence.

Who cares about direction or advancement? These systems are still displaying intelligence independent of that. The intelligence exhibited is only human if it arises from a human. If it comes out of a machine, it's machine intelligence. These are just a ploy on words. You want to define intelligence as something that requires no external manipulation to create. Most people do not define intelligence that way.

>I agree that such systems can be used to augment our abilities, but they don't replace us as our intellectual equals or masters.

you're blind. Do you not see the trendline in how they are augmenting and replacing more and more of our abilities? You follow that trendline the ineviteable replacement is there.

>If we cede control to these unintelligent systems, we then bear the consequences of these systems failing.

Nobody is stupid enough to cede control yet. What are you gonna have chatgpt control your car via language commands and have that thing drive your kid to school. Nobody is stupid enough to do that.

What people are too stupid to realize is that the gap is closing. Right now you can get into a car in San Francisco and have that car drive you to a destination with No driver. Where do you think that trendline will go?

> They will fail and spectacularly at that. If you have any practical engineering background, you will already know that.

As I said at the current state, the most practical thing an AI can do is drive you around San Francisco. If you had any engineering background you'd know that systems fail, but they are fixed and changed and eventually they reach a point where they rarely fail. The driverless AI is getting heading towards that future and so are LLMs.

>So be of good cheer and watch carefully as things develop.

My advice to you is to Think critically because it is sorely lacking here.