• Rogers
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    Claud 3.5 and o1 might be able to do that; if not, they are close to being able to do that. Still better than 99.99% of earthly humans

    • Tamo240@programming.dev
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      You seem to be in the camp of believing the hype. See this write up of an apple paper detailing how adding simple statements that should not impact the answer to the question severely disrupts many of the top model’s abilities.

      In Bloom’s taxonomy of the 6 stages of higher level thinking I would say they enter the second stage of ‘understanding’ only in a small number of contexts, but we give them so much credit because as a society our supposed intelligence tests for people have always been more like memory tests.

      • clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Exactly… People are conflating the ability to parrot an answer based on machine-levels of recall (which is frankly impressive) vs the machine actually understanding something and being able to articulate how the machine itself arrived at a conclusion (which, in programming circles, would be similar to a form of “introspection”). LLM is not there yet