this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2026
490 points (94.4% liked)
Technology
88221 readers
3398 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Intelligence requires possession and/or demonstration of comprehension, something LLMs are intrinsically incapable of.
If you insist on classifying LLMs as ‘AI’, I’ll concede they are proficient Algorithmic Iterators.
Yet LLMs demonstrate all of that
LLMs demonstrate knowledge not intelligence.
LLMs are basically giant knowledge databases with no intelligence. They know a lot of things but they don't understand stand any of it.
Because fundamentally they can't understand things. They can only approximate understanding.
It's no different then if I asked someone to prove 2+2=4. They could tell me that yes that's correct, because they know it. But they couldn't explain it properly. Let alone explain why it also isn't always true.
Hallucinations are fundamentally the disconnect from knowledge and understanding. Everything a LLM says from its point of view is "true" it's only stating factual knowledge so far that it has it in its data set.
But with out understanding, it can't tell when that knowledge wanders from a 99% likelihood to be accurate to 60% or 20%. Because it doesn't actually understand what it's saying.
It can only state subjective not objective truth. And subjective truth is no better than a fiction with out understanding.
This is why they need a human minder to keep track of the output to correct it back to optimum output when it starts to wander.
Chain of thought doesn’t quite align with this. It’s possible to predict something not in training if there are sufficient facts in the history to align the probability toward a conclusion. (the “teach a man to fish” approach) Reasoning chains were introduced to take advantage of this, but it’s also possible to prime facts through external sourcing that can be used to extend the predictions. (web searching, document traversal, etc.)
Your larger point remains accurate though. Introspection capabilities are functional but quite limited, and training bias can be quite pathological in a vacuum.
This binary distinction you're making doesn't exist in any serious scientific literature. I literally have a degree in information technology and have been following this subject for over 30 years now - there's no real distinction between "knowledge" and intelligence. In fact, compression itself is literally intelligence.
You’re proving my point, jog on.
Lemmy luddites: 🙈🙉
Ned Ludd did nothing wrong!
I mean, they are AI though it's a very misleading label, AIs are called like that because to someone it seems that they mimic human inteligence; they are just copycat machines, sadly it's too late to change their name unless a government starts to make campaigns to aid that