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.
  • DeusUmbra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    7 days ago

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

    • samus12345@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      No. People think things that aren’t smarter than them are all the time.

  • Fizz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Even if an ai has access to more facts and information you should feel confident in your human ability to reason through the data you do know, search new information and process it in the context.

    If you think an ai does all this better than you then you need to try harder.

  • booly@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    7 days 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
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days 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.

  • collapse_already@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days 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.

  • forrcaho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    As far as I can tell from the article, the definition of “smarter” was left to the respondents, and “answers as if it knows many things that I don’t know” is certainly a reasonable definition – even if you understand that, technically speaking, an LLM doesn’t know anything.

    As an example, I used ChatGPT just now to help me compose this post, and the answer it gave me seemed pretty “smart”:

    what’s a good word to describe the people in a poll who answer the questions? I didn’t want to use “subjects” because that could get confused with the topics covered in the poll.

    “Respondents” is a good choice. It clearly refers to the people answering the questions without ambiguity.

    The poll is interesting for the other stats it provides, but all the snark about these people being dumber than LLMs is just silly.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days 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 I 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
      3
      ·
      7 days 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
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days 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 I 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
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days 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 chatbot. 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.

  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    190
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    Think of a person with the most average intelligence and realize that 50% of people are dumber than that.

    These people vote. These people think billionaires are their friends and will save them. Gods help us.

    • 9point6@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      8 days ago

      I was about to remark how this data backs up the events we’ve been watching unfold in America recently

    • Gigasser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      8 days ago

      I’m of the opinion that most people aren’t dumb, but rather most don’t put in the requisite intellectual effort to actually reach accurate or precise or nuanced positions and opinions. Like they have the capacity to do so! They’re humans after all, and us humans can be pretty smart. But a brain accustomed to simply taking the path of least resistance is gonna continue to do so until it is forced(hopefully through their own action) to actually do something harder.

      Put succinctly: They can think, yet they don’t.

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 days ago

        Then the question is: what is being smart or dumb? If acting dumb in 90% of life while having the capability of being smart isn’t “being dumb” then what is?

        If someone who has the capability of being 50/100 intelligent and is always acting 50/100, I would argue they are smarter than someone capable of 80/100 intelligence but acts 20/100 intelligence for 90% of their life.

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Broadly speaking, I’d classify “being dumb” as being incurious, uncritical, and unskeptical as a general rule. Put another way: intellectual laziness - more specifically, insisting on intellectual laziness, and particularly, being proud of it.

          A person with a lower than normal IQ can be curious, and a person with a higher than normal IQ can be incurious. It’s not so much about raw intelligence as it is about the mindset one holds around knowledge itself, and the eagerness (or lack thereof) with which a person seeks to find the fundamental truth on topics that they’re presented with.

        • Gigasser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Basically, although base intelligence/smartness perhaps has two parameters that make it? Effort and speed. Everyone can put in a bit more effort, but base speed may be baked in, unless one trains it, and max reachable base speed will depend from person to person. Hell if I know, we haven’t really created a definitive definition for intelligence yet.

          Edit Addendum: As for what can be considered dumb or smart? I agree, lack of effort can be considered “dumb”. Though the word dumb is a bit broad. I guess we can say many people are, out of habit, “intellectually heedless”

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        For generations many relied on the nightly news to keep them informed. It was always a bad idea. Though the local media wasn’t as bad as it is today. Today for many of these people, propaganda outlets like Sinclair own their local media. And demand fawning of trump/demonizing Democrats. Even if they avoid all media. Their beliefs are formed from those around them that don’t.

    • Mac@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      This is why i don’t believe in democracy. Humans are too easy to manipulate into voting against their interests.
      Even the “intelligent” ones.

  • Owl@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    142
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    looking at americas voting results, theyre probably right

  • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 days ago

    Reminds me of that George Carlin joke: Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

    So half of people are dumb enough to think autocomplete with a PR team is smarter than they are… or they’re dumb enough to be correct.