I’m not the guy you’re arguing with, but it will be interesting to see if/how LLMs deal with novel Gödel sentences in a way that is more than just mimicry. I’m sure there is a way to set this up that is mathematically rigourous.
The idea is that there are some statements which are true but unprovable in a formal system. Since LLMs run on a computer they are technically a formal system of sorts. So it will be interesting to see if they can pinpoint the true yet unprovable sentences. If they can it will lead to a lot of interesting questions about how exactly they know it’s true without “proving” it in some roundabout way.
I’m not doing this issue justice. A lot has been written on this by Roger Penrose (you don’t have to agree with his stance to appreciate that he’s touching on an interesting problem, here).
It can perform necessary tasks that actually drive intelligence and isn’t derivative. See: those proofs.
You’re essentially arguing that it’s useless and just moves data around, this isn’t true.
You’re a little too caught up on that specific wording.
I never said or implied that it’s useless. You’re deriving meaning where there is none. It’s a tool and tools are always useful. Here’s an example of a supercomputer (not AI) designed to solve unresolved mathematical equations and scientific problems
Same idea, doesn’t need AI to do it.
My point was, and is, that it cannot replicate human intelligence and that it doesn’t have intelligence on its own.
Give an example of a problem a human can solve that an llm could not, then.
I’m not the guy you’re arguing with, but it will be interesting to see if/how LLMs deal with novel Gödel sentences in a way that is more than just mimicry. I’m sure there is a way to set this up that is mathematically rigourous.
The idea is that there are some statements which are true but unprovable in a formal system. Since LLMs run on a computer they are technically a formal system of sorts. So it will be interesting to see if they can pinpoint the true yet unprovable sentences. If they can it will lead to a lot of interesting questions about how exactly they know it’s true without “proving” it in some roundabout way.
I’m not doing this issue justice. A lot has been written on this by Roger Penrose (you don’t have to agree with his stance to appreciate that he’s touching on an interesting problem, here).