In fact, simple computer programs do a great job of solving these puzzles...
Yes, this shit is very basic. Not at all "intelligent."
why is it assumed that this isn’t what human reasoning consists of?
Because science doesn't work work like that. Nobody should assume wild hypotheses without any evidence whatsoever.
Isn’t all our reasoning ultimately a form of pattern memorization? I sure feel like it is.
You should get a job in "AI". smh.
Performance collapses because luck runs out. Bigger destruction of the planet won't fix that.
The paper doesn’t say LLMs can’t reason
Authors gotta get paid. This article is full of pseudo-scientific jargon.
5 years from now? Or was it supposed to be 5 years ago?
Pretty sure we already have skynet.
This is why I say these articles are so similar to how right wing media covers issues about immigrants.
Maybe the actual problem is people who equate computer programs with people.
Then when they pass laws, we’re all primed to accept them removing whatever it is that advantageous them and disadvantageous us.
You mean laws like this? jfc.
Who is "you"?
Just because some dummies supposedly think that NPCs are "AI", that doesn't make it so. I don't consider checkers to be a litmus test for "intelligence".
I'm going to write a program to play tic-tac-toe. If y'all don't think it's "AI", then you're just haters. Nothing will ever be good enough for y'all. You want scientific evidence of intelligence?!?! I can't even define intelligence so take that! \s
Seriously tho. This person is arguing that a checkers program is "AI". It kinda demonstrates the loooong history of this grift.
Computers are awesome at "recognizing patterns" as long as the pattern is a statistical average of some possibly worthless data set. And it really helps if the computer is setup to ahead of time to recognize pre-determined patterns.
I understand that people in this "field" regularly use pseudo-scientific language (I actually deleted that part of my comment).
But the terminology has never been suitable so it shouldn't be used in the first place. It pre-supposes the hypothesis that they're supposedly "disproving". They're feeding into the grift because that's what the field is. That's how they all get paid the big bucks.
Why would they "prove" something that's completely obvious?
The burden of proof is on the grifters who have overwhelmingly been making false claims and distorting language for decades.
260
Saudi Arabia: Woman jailed for 11 years for online expression supporting women’s rights
(www.amnesty.org)
94
21,000 workers dead in 8 years of Mohammed bin Salman's ‘Saudi vision 2030’: Report
(www.hindustantimes.com)
Their argument is that we don't understand human intelligence so we should call computers intelligent.
That's not hitting any nail on the head.