But when LLM answers a logic or math question that no seven-year-old would figure out, would you flip the table and say this is the evidence that the seven-year-old is not intelligent?
Otherwise, it sounds like circular reasoning, where we simply say "Of course a human being is intelligent because they are intelligent, and LLM is not because it isn't."
and also fails at math about 7% of the time which is abysmal compared to a $7 calculator that fails about 0.00000000001% of the time. that's far more discounting of intelligence than the times it gets the math right is affirming.
Comments
But when LLM answers a logic or math question that no seven-year-old would figure out, would you flip the table and say this is the evidence that the seven-year-old is not intelligent?
Otherwise, it sounds like circular reasoning, where we simply say "Of course a human being is intelligent because they are intelligent, and LLM is not because it isn't."
and also fails at math about 7% of the time which is abysmal compared to a $7 calculator that fails about 0.00000000001% of the time. that's far more discounting of intelligence than the times it gets the math right is affirming.