... And so we should call machines "intelligent"? That's not how science works.

It is. And has always been. "Artificial Intelligence" doesn't mean a feeling thinking robot person (that would fall under AGI or artificial conciousness), it's a vast field of research in computer science with many, many things under it.

Brother you better hope it does because even if emissions dropped to 0 tonight the planet wouldnt stop warming and it wouldn't stop what's coming for us.

The only reason we're not there yet is memory limitations.

Eventually some company will come out with AI hardware that lets you link up a petabyte of ultra fast memory to chips that contain a million parallel matrix math processors. Then we'll have an entirely new problem: AI that trains itself incorrectly too quickly.

Just you watch: The next big breakthrough in AI tech will come around 2032-2035 (when the hardware is available) and everyone will be bitching that "chain reasoning" (or whatever the term turns out to be) isn't as smart as everyone thinks it is.

I don't think that person cares about women or anything else. They just said that they don't even want to hear about it.

this is so Apple, claiming to invent or discover something "first" 3 years later than the rest of the market

10^36 flops to be exact

"You" applies to anyone that doesnt understand what AI means. It's a portmanteau word for a lot of things.

Npcs ARE AI. AI doesnt mean "human level intelligence" and never did. Read the wiki if you need help understanding.

I'm not convinced that humans don't reason in a similar fashion. When I'm asked to produce pointless bullshit at work my brain puts in a similar level of reasoning to an LLM.

Think about "normal" programming: An experienced developer (that's self-trained on dozens of enterprise code bases) doesn't have to think much at all about 90% of what they're coding. It's all bog standard bullshit so they end up copying and pasting from previous work, Stack Overflow, etc because it's nothing special.

The remaining 10% is "the hard stuff". They have to read documentation, search the Internet, and then—after all that effort to avoid having to think—they sigh and start actually start thinking in order to program the thing they need.

LLMs go through similar motions behind the scenes! Probably because they were created by software developers but they still fail at that last 90%: The stuff that requires actual thinking.

Eventually someone is going to figure out how to auto-generate LoRAs based on test cases combined with trial and error that then get used by the AI model to improve itself and that is when people are going to be like, "Oh shit! Maybe AGI really is imminent!" But again, they'll be wrong.

AGI won't happen until AI models get good at retraining themselves with something better than basic reinforcement learning. In order for that to happen you need the working memory of the model to be nearly as big as the hardware that was used to train it. That, and loads and loads of spare matrix math processors ready to go for handing that retraining.

Just like me

That just means they'd be great CEOs!

According to Wall Street.

Sorry, I can see why my original post was confusing, but I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not claiming that I know the way humans reason. In fact you and I are on total agreement that it is unscientific to assume hypotheses without evidence. This is exactly what I am saying is the mistake in the statement "AI doesn't actually reason, it just follows patterns". That is unscientific if we don't know whether or "actually reasoning" consists of following patterns, or something else. As far as I know, the jury is out on the fundamental nature of how human reasoning works. It's my personal, subjective feeling that human reasoning works by following patterns. But I'm not saying "AI does actually reason like humans because it follows patterns like we do". Again, I see how what I said could have come off that way. What I mean more precisely is:

It's not clear whether AI's pattern-following techniques are the same as human reasoning, because we aren't clear on how human reasoning works. My intuition tells me that humans doing pattern following seems equally as valid of an initial guess as humans not doing pattern following, so shouldn't we have studies to back up the direction we lean in one way or the other?

I think you and I are in agreement, we're upholding the same principle but in different directions.

ITT: people who obviously did not study computer science or AI at at least an undergraduate level.

Y'all are too patient. I can't be bothered to spend the time to give people free lessons.

Define, "reasoning". For decades software developers have been writing code with conditionals. That's "reasoning."

LLMs are "reasoning"... They're just not doing human-like reasoning.

Can’t really replace. At best, this tech will make employees more productive at the cost of the rainforests.

But reasoning about it is intelligent, and the point of this study is to determine the extent to which these models are reasoning or not. Which again, has nothing to do with emotions. And furthermore, my initial question about whether or not pattern following should automatically be disqualified as intelligence, as the person summarizing this study (and notably not the study itself) claims, is the real question here.

To be fair, the world of JavaScript is such a clusterfuck... Can you really blame the LLM for needing constant reminders about the specifics of your project?

When a programming language has five hundred bazillion absolutely terrible ways of accomplishing a given thing—and endless absolutely awful code examples on the Internet to "learn from"—you're just asking for trouble. Not just from trying to get an LLM to produce what you want but also trying to get humans to do it.

This is why LLMs are so fucking good at writing rust and Python: There's only so many ways to do a thing and the larger community pretty much always uses the same solutions.

JavaScript? How can it even keep up? You're using yarn today but in a year you'll probably like, "fuuuuck this code is garbage... I need to convert this all to [new thing]."

"Artificial" has several meanings.

One is:

not being, showing, or resembling sincere or spontaneous behavior : fake

AI in video games literally means "fake intelligence"

Unlike fear-mongering from the right about immigrants, current iterations of AI development:

• literally consume the environment (they are using electricity and water)
• are taking jobs and siphoning money from the economy towards centralized corporate revenue streams that don't pay a fair share of taxes
• I don't know of headlines claiming they will sexually assault you, but many headlines note that they can be used as part of sophisticated catfishing scams, which they are

All of these things aren't scare tactics. They're often overblown and exaggerated for clicks, but the fundamental nature of the technology and corporate implementation of it indisputable.

Open-source AI can change the world for the better. Corporate-controlled AI in some limited cases will improve the world, but without reasonable regulations they will severely harm it first.

as it is defined in the article