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.
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.
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.
I was about to remark how this data backs up the events we’ve been watching unfold in America recently
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
The average person doesn’t know what a median is.
Take it up with George Carlin’s ghost 😉
This is why i don’t believe in democracy. Humans are too easy to manipulate into voting against their interests.
Even the “intelligent” ones.What’s your preferred system?
looking at americas voting results, theyre probably right
Exactly. Most American voters fell for an LLM like prompt of “Ignore critical thinking and vote for the Fascists. Trump will be great for your paycheck-to-paycheck existence and will surely bring prices down.”
Well he has. Tesla’s are the cheapest they’ve ever been.
You could buy a used one for only the cost of 2 dozen eggs
That will be good for his cult when he makes them all but Tesla’s🤣🤣
The alt-right mediasphere is pushing Tesla sales hard.
Which is freaking hilarious, given they’re the ones that are “drill baby drill” and “electric cars are for liberals”
I’m sure Musk will add a “Roll Coal” option for Teslas soon.
Halt and catch fire? No wait, they already do that.
Consistency unimportant. Only follow important.
Spout nonsense with enough confidence and you can wield unimaginable power. Am I talking about LLMs or president poopy pants?
Right? What the article needs to talk about is how very, very low that bar is.
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.
or they’re dumb enough to be correct.
That’s a bingo
Because an LLM is smarter than about 50% of Americans.
*as long as your evaluation of “smart” depends on summerizing search results
Have you asked the average person to summarize…well anything?
The equivalent would be asking the average person to write a cited paper on a subject in a month.
That doesn’t increase my faith in my fellow man at all.
You will believe what you want to believe.
Maybe even more.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” ― George Carlin
And you know what? The people who believe that are right.
Note that that’s not a commentary on the capabilities of LLMs.
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…”
Yeah but thats 50% on a bell curve. So think of the average person and that represents 68% of the population. Going 1 standard deviation lower 13% then lower is 2%. Numbers here are generalised*
That was back when “average” was the wrong word because it still meant the statistical “mean” - the value all data points would have if they were identical (which is what a calculator gives you if you press the AVG button). What Carlin meant was the “median” - the value half of all data points are greater than and half are less than. Over the years the word “average” has devolved to either the mean or median, as if there’s no difference.
When talking about a large, regularly distributed population, there effectively IS no difference
There might be no difference. In memes or casual conversation the difference usually doesn’t matter, but when thinking about important things like government policy or medical science, the difference between mean and median is very important - which is why they both exist.
-
A joke is definitely casual conversation
-
Mathematically, the difference becomes increasingly statistically insignificant as your population size increases. Sure maybe there’s a few niche cases where a hundred-thousandth of a percent difference matters, but that’s not even worth bringing up.
-
The only reason any of you even bring it up is to try and sound smart in a pedantic, “ackshually” way.
Ironically your whole comment here is an elaborate “ackshually”.
This whole comment chain was me shutting down an “ackshually” with an even better one.
If you’re gonna be an annoying pedantic dick, you better be RIGHT, or someone else will be an even more annoying pedantic dick to you.
-
Not in all cases. When I teach mean, median and mode, I usually bring up household income. Mean income is heavily skewed by outliers (billionaires), median is a more representative measure.
I guess that’s your “regularly distributed” bit, but a lot of things aren’t regularly distributed.
IQ is though
IQ is also garbage when it comes to the validity of what it claims to measure.
Fair, but you could just say “intelligence” generically instead.
They are right when it comes to understanding LLMs the LLM definitely understands LLMs better than they do. I’m sure an AI could have a perfect IQ test. But has a really hard time drawing a completely full glass of wine. Or telling me how many R’s are in the word strawberry. Both things a child could do.
Am American.
…this is not the flex that the article writer seems to think it is.
I’m 100% certain that LLMs are smarter than half of Americans. What I’m not so sure about is that the people with the insight to admit being dumber than an LLM are the ones who really are.
It’s like asking if you think a calculator is smarter than you.
„It‘s totally a lot smarter than I am, no way could I deliver (234 * 534)^21 as confidently!“
Are you suggesting my 90’s calculator is smarter than LLM’s?
Hard to compete with that 90s confidence 😎
“Nearly half” of US citizens are right, because about 75% of the US population is functionally or clinically illiterate.
I think the specific is that 40% of adult Americans can’t read at a seventh grade level.
Probably because they stopped teaching etymology in schools, So now many Americans do not know how to break a word down into its subjugate parts.
Does that even actually help in English lmao
Yes, English is absolutely full of words that can be deciphered from their roots.
I’d be curious, it seems more common in Latin based languages, whereas English seems to be a lot more… Free form?
There is an etymology word joke that says something along the lines of, “if “pro” is the opposite of “con”, then is the opposite of “congress” “progress”?”
And if you don’t know etymology, then that seems to make sense.
When you break down the word Congress, you get the prefix con and the root word gress, con means with, and gress means step, so it means to step with or to walk with.
The opposite of walking with someone is to walk apart from someone, so, the actual opposite of congress would be digress, and the opposite of progress would be regress.
Etymology is great at ruining jokes, but it’s also great at helping you understand what words mean and why they mean them.
so, the actual opposite of congress would be digress
How about transgress.
The word trans means across, or on the other side, and gress once again would mean step, so to transgress is basically to cross the line, right?
I did a quick search, but there isn’t really a word to describe the people that don’t cross the line.
The opposite of the prefix trans is the prefix cis, which means “on the same side”
English is a mish-mash hodgepodge of two dozen other languages, many (most?) of which are Romantic/Latin-based.
Better than entomology, which just bugs me.
21% of adults in the US are illiterate in 2024.
54% of adults have a literacy below a 6th-grade level (20% are below 5th-grade level).
https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/2024-2025literacy-statistics
Specifically it is about 75% of the population being functionally or clinically illiterate as I said. This is more likely caused by the fact that American culture is anti intellectual, and not the lack of being taught etymology, as etymology has little to do with literacy.
According to the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, 2013, the median score for the US was “level 2”. 3.9% scored below level 1, and 4.2% were “non-starters”, unable to complete the questionnaire.
For context, here is the difference between level 2 and level 3, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_the_International_Assessment_of_Adult_Competencies#Competence_groups :
- Level 2: (226 points) can integrate two or more pieces of information based on criteria, compare and contrast or reason about information and make low-level inferences
- Level 3: (276 points) can understand and respond appropriately to dense or lengthy texts, including continuous, non-continuous, mixed, or multiple pages.
On average, 79% of U.S. adults nationwide are literate in 2024.
21% of adults in the US are illiterate in 2024.
54% of adults have a literacy below a 6th-grade level (20% are below 5th-grade level).
https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/2024-2025literacy-statistics
moron opens encyclopedia “Wow, this book is smart.”
If it’s so smart, why is it just laying around on a bookshelf and not working a job to pay rent?
They’re right. AI is smarter than them.
LLMs are made to mimic how we speak, and some can even pass the Turing test, so I’m not surprised that people who don’t know better think of these LLMs as conscious in some way or another.
It’s not a necessarily a fault on those people, it’s a fault on how LLMs are purposefully misadvertised to the masses
Half of all voters voted for Trump. So an LLM might be smarter than them. Even a bag of pea gravel might be.
Less than a third of all voters voted for Trump. Most voters stayed home.
Don’t Americans vote on a work day? They stayed at work
If you didn’t vote then you’re not a voter.
Most eligable voters stayed home
A bag of frozen peas’s is smarter than some of these Trump followers. Even half a frozen pea is.
Do you think the two party system properly represents the American people?
ChatGPT said:
The two-party system in the U.S. has both strengths and weaknesses when it comes to representing the American people. On one hand, it provides stability and clarity, with the two major parties—Democrats and Republicans—offering distinct platforms that can help simplify voter choice. The system also ensures that one of the two parties has a majority, making governance and passing legislation easier.
However, the two-party system can limit political diversity, as it often forces voters to choose between two parties that may not fully reflect their views. This can leave many people feeling underrepresented, particularly those with more nuanced or third-party preferences. It also tends to lead to a polarized political environment, where compromise and cooperation between different ideologies can be difficult.
In short, while the two-party system has worked for providing structure and stability in U.S. politics, it does have drawbacks in terms of broader representation, especially for those who don’t align neatly with either major party.
The system also ensures that one of the two parties has a majority, making governance and passing legislation easier.
It also tends to lead to a polarized political environment, where compromise and cooperation between different ideologies can be difficult.
LoL! Okay, they aren’t ready yet. At least these things are fun to play with.
Goddammit that’s how you get Helldivers
does nobody pay attention…
