Thread

1. sethev · 1789913820 · focus · HN ↗

   The challenge here is in trying to decide whether LLMs are intelligent or have a mind. Famously, the criteria for intelligence seem to slip with each advancement in technology. But going back to Turing, his test was actually more carefully phrased than we remember: he said that when machines could pass the test, the question of whether they are intelligent would become moot. That seems to be what we're actually seeing: if people can't tell the difference, it kind of won't matter whether they're "truly intelligent" or not.

   1. tomrod · 1789915236 · focus · HN ↗

      I'm a bit more prosaic. I think if we engineered ways for LLMs to begin conversations, rather than just respond, we'd be more open to the concept of their intelligence. Without perceived "will" to do things, they operate as a next-gen search engine or encyclopedia.

      1. bonoboTP · 1789917731 · focus · HN ↗

         OpenClaw etc. They now also create Slack integrations and whatnot. All this is happening but people who are dismissive about AI are in the worst position to even know the capabilities to make their dismissive arguments.

         1. tomrod · 1789925011 · focus · HN ↗

            And those working at the frontier of AI engineering are also keenly aware of current shortcomings.

            1. bonoboTP · 1789926660 · focus · HN ↗

               Yes but the shortcoming is not something categorical like "it cannot start a conversation and can only respond"

               1. lupire · 1790082206 · focus · HN ↗

                  A human cannot start a conversation. Every human conversation is predicated on the human being activated by its parents.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.