Close encounters of the AI kind - Imagining the Digital Future Center
imaginingthedigitalfuture.org
The increasingly human-like way people are engaging with language models Read the full report | Download this report (PDF) | Survey methdology and topline (PDF) March 12, 2025 Half of...

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.
    • blady_blah@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      9 hours ago

      Then asking it a logic question. What question are you asking that the llms are getting wrong and your average person is getting right? How are you proving intelligence here?

        • blady_blah@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          6 hours ago

          I asked gemini and ChatGPT (the free one) and they both got it right. How many people do you think would get that right if you didn’t write it down in front of them? If Copilot gets it wrong, as per eletes’ post, then the AI success rate is 66%. Ask your average person walking down the street and I don’t think you would do any better. Plus there are a million questions that the LLMs would vastly out perform your average human.

          • eletes@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            3·
            6 hours ago

            literally just asked copilot through our work subscription

            I know it looks like I’m shitting on LLMs but really just trying to highlight they still have gaps on reasoning that they’ll probably fix in this decade.