Raw LLM Responses

Argh, why do people keep saying current state-of-the-art AI "isn't really intelligent (because it's just algorithms!)"? Intelligence does not have anything to do with consciousness. Consciousness is not necessary for superintelligence. At least there's no reason to think it is. As for intelligence... quote from Gwern "The Scaling Hypothesis": > The temptation, that many do not resist so much as revel in, is to give in to a déformation professionnelle and **dismiss any model as “just” this or that(“just billions of IF statements” or “just a bunch of multiplications” or “just millions of memorized web pages”), missing the forest for the trees**, as Moravec commented of chess engines > > The event was notable for many reasons, but one especially is of interest here. Several times during both matches, Kasparov reported signs of mind in the machine. At times in the second tournament, he worried there might be humans behind the scenes, feeding Deep Blue strategic insights!…In all other chess computers, he reports a mechanical predictability stemming from their undiscriminating but limited lookahead, and absence of long-term strategy. In Deep Blue, to his consternation, he saw instead an “alien intelligence.” > > …Deep Blue’s creators know its quantitative superiority over other chess machines intimately, but lack the chess understanding to share Kasparov’s deep appreciation of the difference in the quality of its play. **I think this dichotomy will show up increasingly in coming years. Engineers who know the mechanism of advanced robots most intimately will be the last to admit they have real minds. From the inside, robots will indisputably be machines, acting according to mechanical principles, however elaborately layered. Only on the outside, where they can be appreciated as a whole, will the impression of intelligence emerge. A human brain, too, does not exhibit the intelligence under a neurobiologist’s microscope that it does participating in a lively conversation.** > But of course, **if we ever succeed in AI, or in reductionism in general, it must be by reducing Y to ‘just X’. Showing that some task requiring intelligence can be solved by a well-defined algorithm with no ‘intelligence’ is precisely what success must look like! (Otherwise, the question has been thoroughly begged & the problem has only been pushed elsewhere; computer chips are made of transistors, not especially tiny homunculi.)**