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.
    • skozzii@lemmy.caEnglish
      17·
      7 hours ago

      It’s sad, but the old saying from George Carlin something along the lines of, “just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize that 50% are even worse…”

  • futatorius@lemm.eeEnglish
    23·
    8 hours ago

    Half of all voters voted for Trump. So an LLM might be smarter than them. Even a bag of pea gravel might be.

    • Psythik@lemm.eeEnglish
      7·
      7 hours ago

      Less than a third of all voters voted for Trump. Most voters stayed home.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish
        1·
        5 hours ago

        Of you didn’t vote then you’re not a voter.

        Most eligable voters stayed home

  • communism@lemmy.ml
    English
    6·
    6 hours ago

    Given the US adults I see on the internet, I would hazard a guess that they’re right.

  • Zink@programming.devEnglish
    1·
    4 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.worldEnglish
    3·
    6 hours ago

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

      • Donkter@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        5 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.comEnglish
          1·
          5 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.

  • conditional_soup@lemm.eeEnglish
    3·
    6 hours ago

    This is sad. This does not spark joy. We’re months from someone using “but look, ChatGPT says…” To try to win an argument. I can’t wait to spend the rest of my life explaining to people that LLMs are really fancy bullshit generator toys.

    • jj4211@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      6 hours ago

      Already happened in my work. People swearing an API call exists because an LLM hallucinated it. Even as the people who wrote the backend tells them it does not exist

    • the_q@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      6 hours ago

      Large language model. It’s what all these AI really are.

  • tvbusy@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    11·
    9 hours ago

    LLM is proof that even if you’re extremely stupid, having access to information can still make you sound smart.

  • curiousaur@reddthat.comEnglish
    2·
    4 hours ago

    This is hard to quantify. I use them constantly throughout my work day now.

    Are they smarter than me? I’m not sure. Haven’t thought too much about it.

    What they certainly are, and by a long shot, is faster. Given a set of data, I could analyze it and pull out insights and conclusions. It might take me a week or a month depending on the size and breadth of the data set. An LLM can pull out insights and conclusions in seconds.

    I can read error stacks coming from my code, but before I’ve even read the first few lines the LLM has ingested all of them, checked the code, and reached a conclusion about the necessary fix. Is it right, optimal, and avoid creating other bugs? Like 75% at this point. I can coax it, interate on the solution my self, or do it entirely myself with the understanding of the bug that it granted me. This same bug might have taken hours to figure out myself.

    My point is, I’m not sure how to compare smarter vs orders of magnitude faster.