How do you ask a calculator to do something it can't do? Dividing by zero gives you an error, which is completely different from an LLM giving you bs with no indication of an issue.
No, one might not say that. Calculators are not regarded as even a Narrow Intelligence because there's no intelligence. And no, not because of the 'humans so special' or 'it's software!' tautology that oft gets repeated in these discussions. I mean there's no adaptability whatsoever. A Chess bot has it (in its narrow domain of Chess). A calculator does not.
My point (using irony) is that "spiky intelligence" is a somewhat hollow phrase, something that sounds like it could be objective but really it's just a flavor on top of "I'll know it when I see it."
Take anything "intelligent", alter it to be spikier and spikier, and eventually *poof* somehow the intelligence vanishes. You can do the same with the phrases "flawed intelligence" or "specialized intelligence."
> Calculators [have] no intelligence. [...] I mean there's no adaptability
To short-circuit a long discussion, I submit that "adaptability" will (once the Scooby Doo gang catches it) turn out to be "intelligence" in a tautological mask, both equally undefinable except in relation to one-another.
Something will be intelligent because you perceive adaptability, and it'll be adaptable because you infer intelligence. If it doesn't seem adaptable, it can't be intelligent, and if you don't want it to be intelligent, it won't have "real" adaptability.
> A Chess bot has [adaptability] (in its narrow domain of Chess). A calculator does not.
My calculator solves equations with unknown variables, what makes that insufficiently adaptable? What determines the cutoff-point?
>My (ironic) point is that "spiky intelligence" seems rather unhelpful because the "intelligence" part still operates under the rules of "I just know it when I see it."
All intelligence is 'spiky' or 'jagged' or whatever, even human intelligence. We evolved in certain environments and situations and sometimes there's a mismatch and it causes all sorts of wonky things. We just call them funny names like optical illusions and cognitive biases. But it's the same thing. I agree there's no point in call LLMs a 'spiky' intelligence, but for probably the oppoosite reasons as you.
>My calculator solves equations with unknown variables, what makes that insufficiently adaptable? What determines the cutoff-point?
A chess engine can be dropped into a board position it has never encounterd and search over possible continuations, evaluating and selecting actions based on the state it finds itself in.
A calculator solving x+3=7 is doing something quite different. The fact that x can take arbtrary values doesn't make the calculator adaptive; it just means the fixed procedure operates over a range of inputs. Every problem a calculator can solve was effectively anticipated when it was built, and anything outside that grammar produces an error with no partial credit. A chess engine can face positions nobody enumerated, in situations nobody could even dream of and still produce sensible moves.
The core of being intelligent is being able to make decisions independently. That's why we hire smart people - to make better decisions. You can't make decisions if everything is spelt out for you. And naturally, if you can't make decisions, you can't adapt.
>A chess engine can be dropped into a board position it has never encounterd and search over possible continuations, evaluating and selecting actions based on the state it finds itself in.
Sounds pretty similar to a calculator with a numerical root-finding algorithm, if you only substitute board position it has never encounterd with a polynomial it has never encountered.
>The core of being intelligent is being able to make decisions independently
What does it mean for a deterministic algorithm to make decisions?
> What does it mean for a deterministic algorithm to make decisions?
That aspect at least is not an issue, because: what does it mean to say that a dice roll is a "decision"? That's just probability, and it's as mindless as determinism. Some people associate free will with randomness, for no reason other than that it's an escape from the constraint of determinism, but it isn't any more meaningful. Yet just because meaningful thought is pre-determined by physics doesn't stop it from being thought, and hence being a decision.
>Sounds pretty similar to a calculator with a numerical root-finding algorithm, if you only substitute board position it has never encounterd with a polynomial it has never encountered.
>What does it mean for a deterministic algorithm to make decisions?
Newton-Raphson isn't choosing among possible actions. Given (x_n), its next step is mechanically specified by the update rule: compute the derivative, take the tangent intercept, repeat. The intermediate result changes the next input, but that's not by-itself decision making.
A chess engine, again, does something different. From a position, there are many legal actions it could take. It considers alternatives, estimates their consequences according to some objective, and selects one. The engine has to work out which available move best advances its objective.
You can make both algorithms determinstic, but determinism isn't the distinction i'm drawing. 'Decision' here doesn't mean some metaphysical excercise of free will. It's more about selecting an action from alternatives based on an evaluation of their expected consequences. Determinism is orthogonal to decision making. Deterministic doesn't mean predictable, nor does it make its choices any less it own computation.
What about Minimax algorithm playing Tic-Tac-Toe? Is it inteligent? Is it inteligent we if we reduce the search depth so the right decision is not obvious?
A tic-tac-toe minimax algorithm makes choices but with exhaustive search so it really doesn't have to form a judgement about an unresolved situation or decide what is likely to work. Not much of a decision if you're not exercising any judgememt.
Exhaustive search is impossible in chess, so again, chess engines do something different. A chess engine has to stop well before terminal positions and make judgements about positions it cannot fully resolve.
Reducing the search depth would make it more interesting because it too has to evaluate unresolved positions. But then the interesting part becomes the evaluation function is. For tic tac toe, it's going to be very easy to be written in such a manner where most of the judgement is supplied by the designer and not the system.
Not only is it an initial-expectations issue, but if they spy on you anyway there's no real punishment, so they are incentivize to cut corners—or simply cheat.
IMO a good approach would be to surface the status of links to readers, with an icon for "pay-walled" or "register-walled", then see how organic voting affects things.
So if I posted a link to something nobody can actually read, does that mean all downvotes are unfair violations if the social contract?
Availability is itself a meaningful feature for curating the feed.
Sometimes the comment section rescues things, other times it's a decision between two competing submissions, where—all else being equal—the accessible version ought to win.
> I don't really buy it actually. There isn't really anything meaningful you can learn with how to use LLMs/agents that has a half-life greater than a few months at this point, so you can just start doing it at any point in the future and not be meaningfully left behind.
Right, remember how in ~2023 "prompt engineering" was ostensibly the critical thing everybody "needs to learn now or get left behind"?
I feel these tools—or at least the business-model behind them—have a pattern: Basic adoption is easy, while protecting yourself against their flaws is a shifting target where expertise goes stale.
I feel "willpower" makes it sound a little too conscious, as opposed to habits and conditioning.
A good analogy might be a very smart person with a gambling addiction.
Knowing they ought to quit doesn't mean they can quit. Their intelligence becomes invested in the act of gambling itself, and almost no amount of reasoning can help them exit from a situation they didn't reason themselves into.
This makes me think of user-avatar scenarios, like systems that automatically make an abstract design linked to an anonymous user's IP.
If the possibility space is big enough, old heraldry rules could be applied the same way—though old families might not appreciate seeing "their" design randomly appropriated.
That sounds interesting for noticing the difference between "almost identical" versus "not", but I'd worry that the "features vary in perceived importance" part is going to resist any good calibration, since it may vary between ethnic groups and cultures of viewers.
tbh, I don't think of LLMs as junior-devs. Maybe 6 months ago, but now they are v. senior code-monkeys. They are masters of their craft, but their craft is narrow and lacks big picture, collaboration, org goals, etc.
> If proliferated, it can give you all of these freedoms listed that you (and i) desire.
Hold up, let's not oversell things here. GPL/Copyleft just means that you have to share source if you share binaries. However big companies exploit the digital commons differently now.
Instead they run the important pieces remotely in their data-centers, and release neither binary nor source. If they do a client binary (e.g. phone apps), they can just sprinkle in some naive encryption and some "copyrighted content" on the server. Then if you make a custom client--or even document how to do it--you might go to jail. [0]
reply