I think it's a very poor intuition pump. These 'word calculators' have lots of capabilities not suggested by that term, such as a theory of mind and an understanding of social norms. If they are a "merely" a "word calculator", then a "word calculator" is a very odd and counterintuitively powerful algorithm that captures big chunks of genuine cognition.
There is no philosophical difference. It's like asking if Usain Bolt is really a fast runner, or if he just seems like it because he has long legs and powerful muscles.
I think that's a poor a comparison, but I understand your point. I just disagree about there being no philosophical difference. I'd argue the difference is philosophical, rather than factual.
You also indirectly answered my initial question -- so thanks!
I'm not sure I'm educated (or rested) enough to answer that in a coherent manner, certainly not in a comment thread typing on mobile. So I won't waste your time babbling.
I don't disagree they produce astonishing responses but the nuance of why it's producing that output matters to me.
For example, with regard to social mores, I think a good way to summarize my hang up is that my understanding is LLMs just pattern match their way to approximations.
That to me is different from actually possessing an understanding, even though the outcome may be the same.
I can't help but draw comparisons to my autistic masking.
They’re trained on the available corpus of human knowledge and writings. I would think that the word calculators have failed if they were unable to predict the next word or sentiment given the trillions of pieces of data they’ve been fed. Their training environment is literally people talking to each other and social norms. Doesn’t make them anything more than p-zombies though.
As an aside, I wish we would call all of this stuff pseudo intelligence rather than artificial intelligence
I side with Dennett (and Turing for that matter) that a "p-zombie" is a logically incoherent thing. Demonstrating understanding is the same as having understanding because there is no test that can distinguish the two.
Are LLMs human? No. Can they do everything humans do? No. But they can do a large enough subset of things that until now nothing but a human could do that we have no choice but to call it "thinking". As Hofstadter says - if a system is isomorphic to another one, then its symbols have "meaning", and this is indeed the definition of "meaning".
