For a while, I have been making use of Clever Hans as a metaphor. The horse seemed smarter than it really was.
They can certainly appear to be very smart due to having the subjective (if you can call it that) experience of 2.5 million years of non-stop reading.
That's interesting, useful, and is both an economic and potential security risk all by itself.
But people keep putting these things through IQ tests; as there's always a question about "but did they memorise the answers?", I think we need to consider the lowest score result to be the highest that they might have.
At first glance they can look like the first graph, with o1 having an IQ score of 120; I think the actual intelligence, as in how well it can handle genuinely novel scenarios in the context window, are upper-bounded by the final graph, where it's more like 97:
So, with your comment, I'd say the key word is: "currently".
Correct… for now.
But also:
> All these chatgpt things have a very limited working memory and can't act without a query.
It's easy to hook them up to a RAG, the "limited" working memory is longer than most human's daily cycle, and people already do put them into a loop and let them run off unsupervised despite being told this is unwise.
I've been to a talk where someone let one of them respond autonomously in his own (cloned) voice just so people would stop annoying him with long voice messages, and the other people didn't notice he'd replaced himself with an LLM.
They can certainly appear to be very smart due to having the subjective (if you can call it that) experience of 2.5 million years of non-stop reading.
That's interesting, useful, and is both an economic and potential security risk all by itself.
But people keep putting these things through IQ tests; as there's always a question about "but did they memorise the answers?", I think we need to consider the lowest score result to be the highest that they might have.
At first glance they can look like the first graph, with o1 having an IQ score of 120; I think the actual intelligence, as in how well it can handle genuinely novel scenarios in the context window, are upper-bounded by the final graph, where it's more like 97:
https://www.maximumtruth.org/p/massive-breakthrough-in-ai-in...
So, with your comment, I'd say the key word is: "currently".
Correct… for now.
But also:
> All these chatgpt things have a very limited working memory and can't act without a query.
It's easy to hook them up to a RAG, the "limited" working memory is longer than most human's daily cycle, and people already do put them into a loop and let them run off unsupervised despite being told this is unwise.
I've been to a talk where someone let one of them respond autonomously in his own (cloned) voice just so people would stop annoying him with long voice messages, and the other people didn't notice he'd replaced himself with an LLM.