Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
red75prime | on: SQLite Critical CVEs or LLM Slop?
Apophatic intelligence? "We don't know what intelligence is, but LLMs with CoT are certainly not it despite being Turing-complete."

Watching for unexpected failure modes is surely worth it.

gortok | parent
Turing-completeness is a necessary pre-requisite for being able to fulfill the requirements of a Turing machine, nothing more. In the same way that cell division is a necessary condition for life, but cell division does not mean a given life form itself is sentient.

Intelligent life-forms can generate probabilistic outputs based on inputs, but being able to generate probabilistic outputs based on inputs is not what makes us intelligent.

red75prime | root | parent | next
OK. A more pointed question. What do you know about intelligence that allows you to exclude LLMs with CoT from the category of intelligent systems with certainty?
buttercraft | root | parent | next
How do you know there's not a teapot orbiting the sun?
red75prime | root | parent | next
There is no reason to think that teapots were sent into orbit or spontaneously formed there.

Likewise, there is no reason to think the brain employs super-Turing or quantum computations that cannot be approximated by LLMs.

buttercraft | root | parent
The point is that you're asking someone to prove a negative.
vouwfietsman | root | parent | next
Right, it follows naturally that one can never meaningfully discuss that which can only be settled by proving negatives. Hence the total lack of debate on religious topics, as everyone just gave up 1500 years ago and decided that God indeed may or may not exist and that's that.
red75prime | root | parent
It's a negative in your worldview where "intelligence can't be a computation" is an axiom or something close. To me this worldview is sloppy thinking.
buttercraft | root | parent
I did not express my opinion or "worldview." I was simply responding to this:

> exclude LLMs with CoT from the category of intelligent systems with certainty

red75prime | root | parent
Why do you think that intelligence of a Turing-complete system trained on human data can be likened to a Russell's teapot?

At least, don't you think that the recent mathematical results of LLMs are a bit like a glimpse of something teapot-shaped in the orbit? (which makes it not a Russell's teapot, which. by definition, can't be observed).

To me, it's an expected progression of ANNs' approximation of human cognitive processes. The universal approximation theorem guaranties the existence of such ANNs barring the super-Turing or quantum superiority of the brain.

loading story #49161495
Ma8ee | root | parent | next
To my knowledge there are many millions of teapots orbiting the sun.
loading story #49159742
tired-turtle | root | parent
You’re right to point that out. The load-bearing seam of your logical retort is the hidden assumption that the teapot is in outer space, not at peace on a kitchen stovetop here on earth. I am sorry I had not considered this fact. \s
pyrale | root | parent
They were modeled after us, which almost certainly dooms them to stupidity.

They could have been great, if trained on datasets from a more sensible species.

estearum | root | parent
> but being able to generate probabilistic outputs based on inputs is not what makes us intelligent.

???

Of course it is. The brain is mechanically not capable of doing anything other than that.

Do you believe the brain is something other than a bundle of probabilistic physical interactions? Or are brains not the source of what we call intelligence?

loading story #49158935
loading story #49161159
tadfisher | root | parent | next
This deserves about as large of a "[citation needed]" as one could draw. Are you well-studied in neuroscience?
loading story #49158729
beepbooptheory | root | parent | next
Why is the brain probabilistic instead of deterministic?
loading story #49158624
pessimizer | root | parent | next
Yours is a controversial view. It is lazy and selfish to try to get other people to explain their case that it is not exclusively that, when saying that it is exclusively that is the weaker case, and you back it up with nothing but a snarky proclamation.

Are newly born babies reacting due to statistical probabilities that they have derived, or are they using something other than their brains?

estearum | root | parent
> Are newly born babies reacting due to statistical probabilities that they have derived, or are they using something other than their brains?

The answer is obviously yes lol.

The creature is an assemblage of electrical, chemical, and kinetic relationships.

Watching a baby develop is exactly what you'd expect from a system that's predominantly electrical noise triggering behaviors and then gradually refining denoising the relationship between inputs and outputs, with the goal function of achieving more desirable inputs.

Surely you can at least gesture toward one thing in the brain that appears not to be a probabilistic relationship between input and output?