Half of LLM users (49%) think the models they use are smarter than they are, including 26% who think their LLMs are “a lot smarter.” Another 18% think LLMs are as smart as they are. Here are some of the other attributes they see:

  • Confident: 57% say the main LLM they use seems to act in a confident way.
  • Reasoning: 39% say the main LLM they use shows the capacity to think and reason at least some of the time.
  • Sense of humor: 32% say their main LLM seems to have a sense of humor.
  • Morals: 25% say their main model acts like it makes moral judgments about right and wrong at least sometimes. Sarcasm: 17% say their prime LLM seems to respond sarcastically.
  • Sad: 11% say the main model they use seems to express sadness, while 24% say that model also expresses hope.
    • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I’m starting to think an article referring to LLM as AI is s red flag, while them referring to them as LLM is a green flag.

  • DeusUmbra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Remember that 54% of adults in American cannot read beyond a 6th grade level, with 21% being fully illiterate.

  • booly@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Nearly half of U.S. adults

    Half of LLM users (49%)

    No, about a quarter of U.S. adults believe LLMs are smarter than they are. Only about half of adults are LLM users, and only about half of those users think that.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      to be fair they’re American and they’re LLM users, so for a selected group like that odds are they really are as stupid as LLMs.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    They are. Unless you can translate what I’m saying to any language I tell you to on the fly, I’m going to assume that anyone that tells me they are smarter than LLMs are lower on the spectrum than usual. Wikipedia and a lot of libraries are also more knowledgeable than me, who knew. If am grateful for one thing, it is that I am not one of those people whose ego has to be jizzing everywhere, including their perception of things.

    • caden@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The statement is “smarter”, not “possesses more information”. None of the things you listed (LLMs, libraries, Wikipedia, etc.) have any capacity to reason.

      • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        The only thing you’ve argued is that you are choosing one particular definition of smart, ignoring the one I was using, and going all Grammar Nazi into how that’s the only possible definition. As I’ve said, if am grateful for one thing, it is that I am not one of those people whose ego is shallow enough to has /have to be jizzing everywhere, including their perception of things.

    • melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 hours ago

      unfortunately, no. when the concept of machine intelligence was first being explored, marvin minsky(I think)'s secretary used ELIZA, the basic fits-on-a-page. they said it was absolutely a person, that they were friends with it. he walked them through it, explained the code (which, again, fits on one page in a modern language. a couple punch cards back then, you can look at what looked at first glance like a faithful python port here). the secretary just would not believe him, INSISTED that it was a person, that it cared about them.

      this was someone working around the cutting edge of the field, and being personally educated by one of those big ‘great man’ type scientists-and not one of the egotistical shithead ones who’d have been a garbage teacher.

  • collapse_already@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 hours ago

    LLMs don’t even think. Four year olds are more coherent. Given the state of politics, the people thinking LLMs are smarter than them are probably correct.

  • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Next you’ll tell me half the population has below average intelligence.

    Not really endorsing LLMs, but some people…

  • aceshigh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Don’t they reflect how you talk to them? Ie: my chatgpt doesn’t have a sense of humor, isn’t sarcastic or sad. It only uses formal language and doesn’t use emojis. It just gives me ideas that I do trial and error with.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I’m surprised it’s not way more than half. Almost every subjective thing I read about LLMs oversimplifies how they work and hugely overstates their capabilities.