could be defined as intelligent

Okay but what are some useful definitions for us to use here? I could argue a pencil is intelligent if i can play with terms enough.

Id like to have a couple, because it's such a broad topic. Give them different names.

opinions

The capacity to be wrong is not what matters; garbage in garbage out. Lets focus on why it's wrong, how it gets there.

llm models or chatbots

Arent all modern chatbots based on llm's?

subjective conscious

Conscious. Define. Seems like it's gonna come up a lot and its a very slippery word, repurposed from an entirely different context.

common sense is information held uncritically

Okay! I can work with that.

language is fluid and messy

Yeah, but in common use it matters. Not necessarily that they stick to original uses, but the political implications and etymology of new uses should be scrutinized, because it does shape thought, especially for NT's.

But i recognize that it's messy. that's why we're defining terms.

rational

It literally cannot do that

Decisions

In the dame way a fist full of dice can make decisions; sure.

facts

If its programmed to run a script to do a google search and cite the first paragraph of wikipedia; sure. That function is basically eliza with an api call.

knowledge

Okay, sketch on what this actually means, but every answer i can think of, none of which im strongly committed to: still no.

Its a bullshit machine. Like recognizes like, but it can't do anything else. If you think its intelligent, that's because you are not.

Edit: And im really disappointed. I kind of always wanted a computer friend. I would adore the opportunity to midwife whole new forms of intelligence. That sounds really fucking cool. It's the kind of thing i dreamed of as a kid, and this shit being sold as my childhood aspirations is blackpilling as fuck. I think the widespread acceptance of the bullshit sales pitch, and fact it means we're less likely to get the real thing, has lead me to a lot of much more anti-human opinions than i used to have.

It's so funny typing with that much authority and being completely wrong still.

Nope. There's no cognition, no cognitive functions at all in LLMs. They are incapable of understanding actions, reactions, consequences and outcomes.

Literally all it's doing is giving you a random assortment of words that vaguely correlate to indicators that scored highly for the symbols (ideas/intents) that the prompt you entered contained.

Literally that's fucking it.

You're not "talking with an AI" you're interacting with an LLM that is an amalgam of the collective responses for every inquiry, statement, reply, response, question, etc... That is accessible on the public Internet. It's a dilution of the "intelligence" that can be derived from what everyone on the Internet has ever said, and what that cacophony of mixed messages, on average, would reply with.

The reason why LLMs have gotten better is because they've absorbed more data than previous attempts and some of the outlying extremist messages have been carefully pruned from the library, so the resultant AI trends more towards the median persons predicted reply, versus everyone's voice being weighed evenly.

It only seems like "AI" because the responses are derived from real, legitimate human replies that were posted somewhere on the Internet at some point in time.