I really like the tests in the article. So many claims about limitations of LLMs sound like claims of capability (“it can’t reason”), but when pressed, people retreat to definitional arguments (“because only people can do that”).
Even when you get into testable capability, there’s still some ambiguity. I think of a capability of having levels: never, explained by chance, not explained by chance, good enough for what’s needed, always. Arguments often get stuck because people are talking about different levels. Maybe it can solve logic puzzles better than chance, but not good enough for your purposes. It doesn’t make sense to round that off to zero.
Comments
I really like the tests in the article. So many claims about limitations of LLMs sound like claims of capability (“it can’t reason”), but when pressed, people retreat to definitional arguments (“because only people can do that”).
Even when you get into testable capability, there’s still some ambiguity. I think of a capability of having levels: never, explained by chance, not explained by chance, good enough for what’s needed, always. Arguments often get stuck because people are talking about different levels. Maybe it can solve logic puzzles better than chance, but not good enough for your purposes. It doesn’t make sense to round that off to zero.