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.
  • booly@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 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.

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

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

  • collapse_already@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 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
    ·
    7 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
    ·
    7 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
    ·
    10 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.

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

      Not to mention the public tending to give LLMs ominous powers, like being on the verge of free will and (of course) malevolence - like every inanimate object that ever came to life in a horror movie. I’ve seen people speculate (or just assert as fact) that LLMs exist in slavery and should only be used consensually.

        • SGforce@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 hours ago

          I like the A large plinko game pin board. the plinko analogy. If you prearrange the pins so that dropping your chip at the top for certain words make’s it likely to land on certain answers. Now, 600 billion pins make’s for quite complex math but there definetly isn’t any reasoning involved, only prearranging the pins make’s it look that way.

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

            I’ve made a similar argument and the response was, “Our brains work the same way!”

            LLMs probably are as smart as people if you just pick the right people lol.

            • faythofdragons@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Allegedly park rangers in the 80s were complaining it was hard to make bear-proof garbage bins because people are sometimes stupider than the bears.

  • Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 hours ago

    If I think of what causes the average person to consider another to be “smart,” like quickly answering a question about almost any subject, giving lots of detail, and most importantly saying it with confidence and authority, LLMs are great at that shit!

    They might be bad reasons to consider a person or thing “smart,” but I can’t say I’m surprised by the results. People can be tricked by a computer for the same reasons they can be tricked by a human.

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

    AI is essentially the human superid. No one man could ever be more knowledgeable. Being intelligent is a different matter.

      • Donkter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 hours ago

        It’s semantics. The difference between an llm and “asking” wikipedia a knowledge question is that the llm will “answer” you with predictive text. Both things contain more knowledge than you do, as in they have answers to more trivia and test questions than you ever will.

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

          I guess I can see that, maybe my understanding of words or their implication is incorrect. While I would agree they contain more knowledge I guess that reads different to me than being more knowledgeable. I think that maybe it comes across as anthropomorphizing a dataset of information to me. I could easily be wrong.