Our intelligence is related to brain structures, not all intelligence. You can't get to things like "what all intelligence, in general, is" from "what our intelligence is" any more than you can say that all food must necessarily be meat because sausages exist.

But... we're talking about our intelligence. So obviously it's quite relevant. I didn't say that AI isn't intelligent, I said that we have good reason to believe that our intelligence is unique. And we do, a lot of good evidence.

I obviously don't believe that all intelligence is related to specific brain structure. Again, I'm a functionalist, so I believe that any structure that can exhibit the necessary functions would be equivalent in regards to intelligence.

None of this would commit me to (a) human exceptionalism (b) LLMs/ Agents being intelligent (c) LLMs/ Agents being intelligent in the way that humans are.

This is too dependent on what you mean by "unique", though. What do we have that apes don't, and which directly enables intelligence? What do we have that LLMs don't? What do LLMs have that we don't?

I don't think we know enough to definitively say "it's this bit that gives us intelligence, and there's no way to have intelligence without it". We just see what we have, and what animals lack, and we say "well it's probably some of these things maybe".

> What do we have that apes don't, and which directly enables intelligence?

Again, there are multiple fields of study with tons of amazingly detailed answers to this. We know about specific proteins, specific brain structures, we know about specific cognitive capabilities in the abstract, etc.

> What do we have that LLMs don't?

Again, quite a lot is already known about this.

This feels a bit like you're starting to explore this area and you're realizing that intelligence is complex, but you may not realize that others have already been doing this work and we have a litany of information on the topic. There are big open questions, of course, but we're definitely past the point of being able to say "there is a difference between human and ape intelligence" etc.

It'd probably be more productive for you to actually back up your claims with these things we know from neuroscience, rather than just stating that we know things, and so therefore you're right. What do we know?

EDIT: can't reply, so I'll just update here:

You're arguing that the mechanism that produces human intelligence is unique, so therefore the intelligence itself is somehow fundamentally different from the intelligence an LLM can produce. You haven't shown that, you just keep saying we know it's true. How do we know?

I don't need to do that unless you think that neurons interact exactly the way that LLMs do? That said, we have detailed, microscopic models of neurons, the ability to even simulate brain activity, intervention studies where we can make predictions, interact with brains in various ways, and then validate against predictions, we have cognitive benchmarks that we can apply to different animals or animals in different stages of development that we can then tie to specific brain states and brain development, etc.

So we're in a very good position to say quite a lot about the brain, an incredible amount really. And that puts us in a very good position to say that our brain is very different from other animal brains, and certainly in a very good position to say that's very different from an LLM.

Now, you can argue that an LLM is functionally equivalent to the brain, but given that it's so structurally distinct, and seemingly functions in a radically different way due to the nature of that structure, I'd put it on you to draw symmetries and provide evidence of that symmetry.

I'm following this mini-thread with interest but I've arrived here and I confess, I don't really know what your argument is.

I think this all stems from you objecting to this statement:

"I don't know why I am still perpetually shocked that the default assumption is that humans are somehow unique."

I think you're being uncharitable in how you interpret that. Human's are unique in the most literal reading of this sentence, we don't have anything else like humans. But the context is the ability to reason and people denying that a machine is reasoning, even though it looks like reasoning.

They're shocked that people believe that humans are unique. I explained why that shouldn't be shocking. I think I was pretty charitable here, I gave an alternative option for what they could mean in my very first reply:

> Unless you mean "fundamentally unique" in some way that would persist - like "nothing could ever do what humans do".

> I don't really know what your argument is.

I just said that I think that we have very good reasons for believing that human cognition is unique. The response was seemingly that we don't have enough of an understanding of intelligence to make that judgment. I've stated that I think we do have enough of an understanding of intelligence to make that judgment, and I've appealed to the many advances in relevant feilds.

I still think you're being far too literal, which doesn't make for an interesting conversation.

I'm open to hearing how you think I should be interpreting things. I don't really think I'm being too literal, it certainly hasn't been the case that they've suggested my interpretation is wrong, and I've provided two interpretations (one that I totally grant).

What's the better interpretation of their position?