Is it that different than kids googling that stuff pre-chatgpt? Hell I remember seeing videos on youtube teaching you how to make bubble hash and BHO like 15 years ago

Everything. As we as humanity learn more we recognize errors or wisdom with standing the test of time.

We could go into the definition of intelligence, but it's just not worth it.

We can just disagree and that's fine.

When we started calling literal linear regression models AI it lost all value.

A linear regression model isn’t an AI system.

The term AI didn’t lose its value - people just realized it doesn’t mean what they thought it meant. When a layperson hears “AI,” they usually think AGI, but while AGI is a type of AI, it’s not synonymous with the term.

Yes, it is. People are personifying llms and having emotional relationships with them, what leads to unpreceded forms of abuse. Searching for shit on google or youtube is a thing, but being told by some entity you have emotional links to do something is much worse.

Yeah... But in order to make bubble hash you need a shitload of weed trimmings. It's not like your just gonna watch a YouTube video, then a few hours later have a bunch of drugs you created... Unless you already had the drugs in the first place.

Also Google search results and YouTube videos arent personalized for every user, and they don't try to pretend that they are a person having a conversation with you

I’ve had this discussion countless times, and more often than not, people argue that an LLM isn’t intelligent because it hallucinates, confidently makes incorrect statements, or fails at basic logic. But that’s not a failure on the LLM’s part - it’s a mismatch between what the system is and what the user expects it to be.

An LLM isn’t an AGI. It’s a narrowly intelligent system, just like a chess engine. It can perform a task that typically requires human intelligence, but it can only do that one task, and its intelligence doesn’t generalize across multiple independent domains. A chess engine plays chess. An LLM generates natural-sounding language. Both are AI systems and both are intelligent - just not generally intelligent.

Sorry, no. It's not intelligent at all. It just responds with statistical accuracy. There's also no objective discussion about it because that's how neural networks work.

I was hesitant to answer because we're clearly both convinced. So out of respect let's just close by saying we have different opinions.

I hear you - you're reacting to how people throw around the word “intelligence” in ways that make these systems sound more capable or sentient than they are. If something just stitches words together without understanding, calling it intelligent seems misleading, especially when people treat its output as facts.

But here’s where I think we’re talking past each other: when I say it’s intelligent, I don’t mean it understands anything. I mean it performs a task that normally requires human cognition: generating coherent, human-like language. That’s what qualifies it as intelligent. Not generally so, like a human, but a narrow/weak intelligence. The fact that it often says true things is almost accidental. It's a side effect of having been trained on a lot of correct information, not the result of human-like understanding.

So yes, it just responds with statistical accuracy but that is intelligent in the technical sense. It’s not understanding. It’s not reasoning. It’s just really good at speaking.