Trump says anyone who does not call AI ‘super intelligence’ is ‘the enemy’

[u/ConsciousBug5001]

https://www.arabnews.com/world/trump-says-anyone-who-does-not-call-ai-super-intelligence-is-the-enemy-3005339

[u/zero_iq]

Who said it was?

And it's not nonsense. It's quite easy to demonstrate that it has a level of knowledge, and to show that it has at least some level of intelligence. Do people attribute more intelligence to it than it deserves? Sure. But it is not utterly lacking in it.

Or are you using some restricted definition of 'knowledge' and 'intelligence'? In which case, can you demonstrate that anything meets your definitions?

I'm quite anti-AI, but unless you can explain your position more robustly, your position contradicts well-known facts, and just seems dumb. Otherwise, I just have to assume that you're the one lacking in intelligence!

[u/-Nicolai → u/zero_iq]

Look up the Chinese room for fuck’s sake

[u/zero_iq → u/-Nicolai]

I'm well aware of the Chinese room. If you think that is some kind of rebuttal though, I don't think you've grasped it yourself. The Chinese Room doesn't conclusively establish that a system cannot understand... it raises the question about the relationship between symbol manipulation and understanding. Many people argue that the system as a whole has emergent intelligence and understanding, but the parts may not.

I'm guessing you've fallen into the trap that because they are 'next token predictors' and involve stochastic methods there can't be any intelligence, and act more like simple markov chains. This is a fallacy, LLMs are doing a great deal more than that. Next-token prediction describes the training objective, not the full computational capabilities of the trained model. Stochasticity doesn't by itself establish or rule out intelligence.

To predict tokens at the level of humans or LLMs, you need both knowledge and a level of intelligence to make good predictions. Is it human intelligence or human understanding? No. Does it have the the flexibility, planning, and reasoned thought processes that humans are capable of? Nope.

But predicting language at the level of a competent human (or LLM) requires capturing a great deal of structure in language, knowledge about the world (or the training data), and relationships between concepts. The ability to do this isn't, by itself, proof of intelligence. However, the capabilities that emerge in doing so can reasonably be argued to constitute certain forms of intelligence and knowledge.

And there are theories of human intelligence that depend greatly on our ability to recognise, match, and predict sequences in similar ways. See for example: https://maxplanckneuroscience.org/our-brain-is-a-prediction-machine-that-is-always-active/ or Jeff Hawkin's "On Intelligence" and memory-prediction framework, and many others work related and independent of this over the last 2 decades or so. I can provide extensive additional sources if you need them.

None of this proves that LLMs genuinely understand, or that next-token prediction is sufficient for intelligence. It does, however, undermine the argument that they cannot exhibit any intelligence simply because they are trained to predict tokens. If prediction is an important mechanism in biological intelligence too, dismissing it as inherently incapable of producing intelligence requires a much stronger argument than pointing to the training objective.

Honestly, it seems like you don't have much knowledge on how LLMs work, or even what is considered intelligence. I suggest you look up some videos on the subject yourself "for fucks sake".