>we’re talking about LLMs here, not something that does “perfect word prediction”.
The argument presented to me was that LLMs can't be intelligent because they're word predictors. This rests on the assumption that a word predictor must not be intelligent. So we are talking about word predictors. I am arguing that the assumption is false, that a member of the set "Word Predictors" is not necessarily unintelligent. A perfect word predictor is a counterexample that I use to demonstrate this.
>I don’t know what a perfect word predictor is supposed to be… there is an endless series of prompts for which there is no single right next word
A perfect word predictor must always predict an accurate word. It is no more accurate to say the Eiffel tower is 330 meters tall than to say it's 1083 feet tall, so 'perfect' does not restrict one to a single choice. I don't believe 'perfect' needs to be redefined for that to make sense- a perfect sandwich is no less perfect if you rotate the bread 180 degrees.
>I think a large proportion of intelligent people would be unable to answer [sqrt(n)]
Yes, a perfect word predictor would be considerably more intelligent than people. Indeed, it would need to be maximally intelligent.
>Meanwhile, a very simple and distinctly unintelligent computer program could be great at [sqrt(n)]
As I said, sqrt(n) is just one example of a prompt for which memorization would be insufficient. It would still need to predict words perfectly across all other contexts. It would need to be able to prove theorems, solve riddles, invent recipes, win/tie chess games, tell you what you're thinking right now, etc. If it was capable of this and you didn't think it was intelligent, I don't know what to tell you- what criteria would it not be meeting?
The argument presented to me was that LLMs can't be intelligent because they're word predictors. This rests on the assumption that a word predictor must not be intelligent. So we are talking about word predictors. I am arguing that the assumption is false, that a member of the set "Word Predictors" is not necessarily unintelligent. A perfect word predictor is a counterexample that I use to demonstrate this.
>I don’t know what a perfect word predictor is supposed to be… there is an endless series of prompts for which there is no single right next word
A perfect word predictor must always predict an accurate word. It is no more accurate to say the Eiffel tower is 330 meters tall than to say it's 1083 feet tall, so 'perfect' does not restrict one to a single choice. I don't believe 'perfect' needs to be redefined for that to make sense- a perfect sandwich is no less perfect if you rotate the bread 180 degrees.
>I think a large proportion of intelligent people would be unable to answer [sqrt(n)]
Yes, a perfect word predictor would be considerably more intelligent than people. Indeed, it would need to be maximally intelligent.
>Meanwhile, a very simple and distinctly unintelligent computer program could be great at [sqrt(n)]
As I said, sqrt(n) is just one example of a prompt for which memorization would be insufficient. It would still need to predict words perfectly across all other contexts. It would need to be able to prove theorems, solve riddles, invent recipes, win/tie chess games, tell you what you're thinking right now, etc. If it was capable of this and you didn't think it was intelligent, I don't know what to tell you- what criteria would it not be meeting?