Have you considered that children, and people in general, may be very significantly less intelligent than your baseline assumption?
A flaw in the Turing test is failing to specify which person is making the judgement. We're working with statistical distributions here and I would not bet on the intellect displayed by the LLM models being below that displayed by the human population today, let alone with more improvement to one or degradation to the other.
More concretely, if you sketch some normal distributions on a whiteboard for people vs machine based on how you see things, it should be hard to confidently claim minimal overlap.
Even without a definition of intelligence, this is not what the paper is about, which only mentions LLMs in passing. And LLMs can be useful even if they are wrong, because formal verification (though Lean and such) checks the result.
That's fine, and unrelated to the article in any way.
LLMs are way more useful than a child in many ways, some of which are discussed in the article. They don't need to be as intelligent as a child for anything proposed in the article.
This isn't really a meaningful prediction unless you define clearly your idea of what being "as intelligent as a precocious child" is, and how you would assess an LLM or any other system against that metric. Though I suppose you avoid the risk of having to move the goalposts later if you never set them up in the first place.
I have a great many regrets in life but if I died opposing Sam Altman and Fidji Simo and Larry Summers in the newest version of their oppressive lies that would be a good death.
benreesman|1 year ago
The burden rests on OpenAI and the scholars on their payroll to show otherwise.
JonChesterfield|1 year ago
A flaw in the Turing test is failing to specify which person is making the judgement. We're working with statistical distributions here and I would not bet on the intellect displayed by the LLM models being below that displayed by the human population today, let alone with more improvement to one or degradation to the other.
More concretely, if you sketch some normal distributions on a whiteboard for people vs machine based on how you see things, it should be hard to confidently claim minimal overlap.
4ad|1 year ago
Are LLMs useful enough? I don't know.
furyofantares|1 year ago
LLMs are way more useful than a child in many ways, some of which are discussed in the article. They don't need to be as intelligent as a child for anything proposed in the article.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
gbnwl|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
benreesman|1 year ago