Baron VonSnatch

I redid the multi-digit multiplication experiment, now with gpt-5.5. With medium reasoning and 7 samples each cell, it pretty much aced the test with 99.46% accuracy. The model had no tools to call and had to rely on its reasoning. Can it go further? (1/4)

I’m getting tired of “experts” like this misunderstanding what they’re looking at. LLMs are giant databases of stuff HUMAN BEINGS have done. They are the EXHAUST of humanity. Prompts are database queries into EXISTING DATA. It’s a fuzzy search engine, not intelligence.

I am getting tired of reading 'experts' like LeCun repeatedly claiming that our AIs are nowhere near human-level intelligence. Let us look at the evidence. US universities rank students based on standardized tests like the SAT. Current AIs achieve near-perfect SAT scores. They also beat tests like the GRE. A few years ago, it was notable when early ChatGPT scored ~120 on an IQ test, a common measure of human intelligence. An IQ of 120 is well above average. Current AIs reportedly have IQ scores similar to those of leading scientists. It is not just in tests. I can ask an AI to produce a science paper that looks undistinguishable from what a PhD level student could do. I just have to give it the data. Better yet, from a prompt, agents can run the experiments and collect the data, and then write the papers. Those of us who try to get work done with AI know what is possible. You can't possibly just say 'this is nowhere near human-level intelligence'. In software, good AIs show a greater mastery of, say, C++, than your average software engineering professor. You could just build a formal test to prove it. The difficulty is that the professors would refuse to take your tests. At this point point, someone will object 'yeah, but your AI can't do this simple thing that we can all do'. Fine. These AIs do not have *human* intelligence. They are very much not human beings. They are something like alien intelligence. They can code straight in assembly language, but have trouble counting characters in words. But that's the result of trade-offs. A dog or a monkey can solve some problems faster than you can. But let us be fair. As a species, these AIs have definitively 'human-level intelligence'. You can't spend decades setting up cognitive tests for human beings, have these AIs beat us in these tests and then say 'well, that's not real intelligence'. Come on !

Is Richard Dawkins' recent article about AI consciousness silly? Yes. He seems to fall victim to the very cognitive tendency he claims gave rise to religion: a hyperactive agency detection device. BUT, the question of AI consciousness is complicated. I explain why here: