Asklemmy

44119 readers

862 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Are modern LLMs closer to AGI or next word predictor? Where do they fall in this graph with 10 on x-axis being human intelligence. (programming.dev)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

94 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Wondering if Modern LLMs like GPT4, Claude Sonnet and llama 3 are closer to human intelligence or next word predictor. Also not sure if this graph is right way to visualize it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But how do you know that the human brain is not just a super sophisticated next-thing predictor that by being super sophisticated manages to incorporate nuance and all that stuff to actually be intelligent? Not saying it is but still.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Because we have reason, understanding. Take something as simple as the XY problem. Humans understand that there are nuances to prompts and questions. I like the XY because a human knows to step back and ask "what are you really trying to do?". AI doesn't have that capability, it doesn't have reasoning to say "maybe your approach is wrong".

So, I'm not the one to define what it is or on what scale. But I can say that it's not human intelligence.