When I get to shit like this "The challenges we face in understanding language models resemble those faced by biologists."

Give me a fucking break. An LLM resembles biology in the same way that I resemble a face on Mt. Rushmore. Superficially to say the least.

If they wanted me to read past the video, they should make a video that isn't utter shit.

I mean how can I tell? Didn't mean to sound snarky. Not there, at least.

Tell kids they're there to learn, not for the grade.
Have more in-class writing.
Have more in-class reading too, led by the teacher.
Grade based on that and discussions.
Collect phones/smart watches/headphones at the door of each class. They can be hung in pouches on the wall.

Among other methods that can help.

The real problem is not Chat GPT. The real problem is a false meritocracy based on grades and test scores.

How would I know? It's been a few years now.

I have had allergies my whole life. I take an allergy pill 365, and it helps the stuffiness but not the sense of smell.

David Chalmers thought of that, and he's a moron.

That's an absurdly broad use of the word "intelligence" that doesn't match how most people use the word. It creates the absurdity that your toaster is intelligent, as is your old fashioned dial thermostat. We may as well throw the word out at this point, because it means essentially "does stuff I understand". David Chalmers would perhaps agree with you, but he's a fool.

We know how LLMs work, far more like toasters than humans, so when we call them intelligent, we make the concept of intelligence quite dumb.

As for brains, we know they make minds. They're also on levels of complexity that make the biggest LLM models look like basic math.

Yes, if possible at all.

Results are never "hallucinated," or all results are "hallucinated". We just say, "Oh, that's incorrect. It hallucinated." The truth is, the machine went through the process the same way to get the right or wrong result, and the machine does not know what truth or anything else is.

That little religious video does not contradict what I said about how neural nets work. It just throws some weird cultish bullshit on top, by saying "thinking" and similar works over and over.

The "neural net" system of "AI" we use today is a grand way of self-organizing a statistical filter. Will this create intelligence on its own? There's no reason to think so, unless one is incapable of critical thinking. See the other comments here for some examples of an inability to think.

What the current batch of "AI" can do is recreate something that statistically and realistically looks like intelligence, at least some of the time. The deficiencies of this technology, and the downsides of its use and overuse, become more obvious every single day. We just have this great set of math, and machines that can do the math quickly, that pull patterns from large amounts of data. Feed a ton of human data, then get a pattern of human behavior. It does not make actual human behavior or thought, of course.

That said, to create something that is effectively intelligent, effectively capable of everything a human can do, I do believe that neural nets can play a role, especially for things like image recognition. What to do with that recognition is a whole other thing, though, and that is where something else needs to be invented. Also, there is a lot of room for leaps forward in the current neural net state of the art. I think, though, most efforts are focused on processor efficiency and experts, instead of trying to transform the science of the software.

You must also believe your toaster is intelligent then.

Nope. Everyone uses it. Especially YouTube shorts for the kids.

Is a that the case? OK, um, Firefox sucks. Don't use it!

My nose has felt inflamed ever since the first time I caught COVID, and my sense of smell is only maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of what it used to be. At least I don't smell farts so much anymore.