Might choux hit that dark breakfast abyss? They aren't breakfast per se, but it might show that you can do things with those proportions.

Would you mind rectifying the wrong parts then?

Phrases like "actual understanding", "true intelligence" etc. are not conducive to productive discussion unless you take the trouble to define what you mean by them (which ~nobody ever does). They're highly ambiguous and it's never clear what specific claims they do or don't imply when used by any given person.

But I think this specific claim is clearly wrong, if taken at face value:

> They just regurgitate text compressed in their memory

They're clearly capable of producing novel utterances, so they can't just be doing that. (Unless we're dealing with a very loose definition of "regurgitate", in which case it's probably best to use a different word if we want to understand each other.)

The fact that the outputs are probabilities is not important. What is important is how that output is computed.

You could imagine that it is possible to learn certain algorithms/ heuristics that "intelligence" is comprised of. No matter what you output. Training for optimal compression of tasks /taking actions -> could lead to intelligence being the best solution.

This is far from a formal argument but so is the stubborn reiteration off "it's just probabilities" or "it's just compression". Because this "just" thing is getting more an more capable of solving tasks that are surely not in the training data exactly like this.

a link to the non-paywalled article is at the top of the hn post

There are some of them in this article https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10329-017-0604-0

Thanks, they seem like more than just random splashes of color.. possibly I'm anthropomorphising but it feels like it was straining to draw something specific like a young child would.

I've found another[1] on a blog post[2], captioned as follows:

  Frontispiece 1. Art drawn by chimpanzee Ai using sharpies(Saito, 2008)[p.19]
  Frontispiece 2. Art styles of 4 adult chimpanzees(Saito, 2008). Guess which one was by Ai[p.20]

Not sure what the background of the author is, but this essay/lecture note discusses ego or literal self-awareness of apes contrasted against human children, using quotes from books. Apparently apes don't exhibit explosive growth of vocabulary, show use of syntax etc etc, and are therefore not able to acquire language. The post later also argues their ego may be on the edge of formulating but must be weak/incomplete.

There's also magazine excerpt[3] on a page on relevant Kyoto University research center comparing an inpainting task done by a chimpanzee and a human child of 3 years old, showing that chimpanzees can only recognize and trace existing patterns, whereas kids go and complete the face with eyes, nose and mouth.

  1: https://kyoikugenri2019.up.seesaa.net/image/2017-10-132018.11.52.jpg
  2: https://kyoikugenri2019.seesaa.net/article/471281414.html
  3: https://www.wrc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ja/publications/AyaSaito/kagaku084.html

I agree there is intent there, but it doesn't look like an effort to draw a still life, more like the chimp was fascinated with the patterns and techniques it could manipulate.

Yes, same with Koko. I think they do not fully understand art and abstraction, nor profits made by good art. It is too abstract.

They can, however had, understand sign language and symbol language, and basically that art is also an abstraction. Will probably take a while before we can identify abstract art by apes.

Hey, she did her best.

Well, 12+12=24, so now we can complete two advents

For the record, eskimo is a derrogatory term meaning "raw meat eater". The term Inuit is nowadays preferred.

Thank you. I did not know that. I shall strive to update my use of wording there.