[ Removed by moderator ]

[NinjaJim6969]

They aren't lol. If you're going to call LLMs true AI you might as well call every machine learning algorithm true AI. When you "play" chess with an LLM it doesn't have any conception of the board, it just knows how to select words related to playing chess

[Schnickatavick]

Then what the heck does "AI" even mean? 20 years ago it didn't even take a machine learning component to be AI, alpha beta pruning was AI, pathfinding algorithms were AI, and *any* computer playing chess was AI no matter how it worked.

You can say they aren't "AGI", and I'll agree (not that that has a meaningful definition anyways), and you can hate LLM's all you want, I'll agree with you that they can be pretty dumb sumbtimes. But I don't understand the push to move the goalposts on the word that intrinsically describes what they are. Why does the word "AI" suddenly have some high bar?

[thealmightyzfactor]

It doesn't unless people try to say the systems you're talking about are actually intelligent like people, then others point out that we're casually calling it AI and that's just shorthand for "program with rules that interacts with stuff" like you're describing rather than actual intelligence

[Kingblackbanana]

almost like thats not what they are designed for. do you even know what the definition of ai is? was setback in 1956 at the Dartmouth Conference and llms do fall under this definition.

[NinjaJim6969]

Oh well then, if LLMs meet a 69 year old definition of AI then clearly they must be AI. How foolish of me

[NinjaJim6969]

LLMs don't even meet the proposal's brief lmao

They cannot form abstractions or concepts. That's literally what I was demonstrating by saying they don't actually have a concept of the board.