Thread

1. vhantz · 1789914210 · focus · HN ↗

   Building up strawmen against LLMs will only make the hypers look more reasonable. A language model responds to inouts exactly as a model of anything else would. That is enough to explain all the "intelligence" without believing a model is somehow a "new kind of mind". Those who think LLMs are intelligent don't know enough about models. And those who think they are useless don't know enough about models.

   1. vhantz · 1789919412 · focus · HN ↗

      To all commenters who think LLMs are intelligent and comparable to themselves, you don't need me to change your mind. I believe you.

      1. daishi55 · 1789920375 · focus · HN ↗

         Sorry but are you trying to subtly imply that if I think LLMs are intelligent, I’m probably actually just a bit stupid?

         Because I would be more than happy to go head to head with you on academic and professional pedigree and credentials.

         I notice you also ignore my comment that you seem to be replying to and instead post your response here. But did you have any answer to the question I asked?

         <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49776482">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49776482

         1. slopinthebag · 1789920608 · focus · HN ↗

            would this imply llms aren&#x27;t intelligent because they have no academic or professional pedigree or credentials? :P

            1. daishi55 · 1789920690 · focus · HN ↗

               Oh no I meant to compare myself to the person I am talking to, because I believe my credentials and pedigree ought to convince them that I am a pretty smart guy and so the argument “if you think LLMs are intelligent then you’re dumb” doesn’t ring true for me.

               1. mrguyorama · 1790007134 · focus · HN ↗

                  Your credentials and pedigree seem to be &quot;Self taught @ Meta&quot;

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.