I obviously don't believe that all intelligence is related to specific brain structure. Again, I'm a functionalist, so I believe that any structure that can exhibit the necessary functions would be equivalent in regards to intelligence.
None of this would commit me to (a) human exceptionalism (b) LLMs/ Agents being intelligent (c) LLMs/ Agents being intelligent in the way that humans are.
I don't think we know enough to definitively say "it's this bit that gives us intelligence, and there's no way to have intelligence without it". We just see what we have, and what animals lack, and we say "well it's probably some of these things maybe".
Again, there are multiple fields of study with tons of amazingly detailed answers to this. We know about specific proteins, specific brain structures, we know about specific cognitive capabilities in the abstract, etc.
> What do we have that LLMs don't?
Again, quite a lot is already known about this.
This feels a bit like you're starting to explore this area and you're realizing that intelligence is complex, but you may not realize that others have already been doing this work and we have a litany of information on the topic. There are big open questions, of course, but we're definitely past the point of being able to say "there is a difference between human and ape intelligence" etc.
EDIT: can't reply, so I'll just update here:
You're arguing that the mechanism that produces human intelligence is unique, so therefore the intelligence itself is somehow fundamentally different from the intelligence an LLM can produce. You haven't shown that, you just keep saying we know it's true. How do we know?
So we're in a very good position to say quite a lot about the brain, an incredible amount really. And that puts us in a very good position to say that our brain is very different from other animal brains, and certainly in a very good position to say that's very different from an LLM.
Now, you can argue that an LLM is functionally equivalent to the brain, but given that it's so structurally distinct, and seemingly functions in a radically different way due to the nature of that structure, I'd put it on you to draw symmetries and provide evidence of that symmetry.
I think this all stems from you objecting to this statement:
"I don't know why I am still perpetually shocked that the default assumption is that humans are somehow unique."
I think you're being uncharitable in how you interpret that. Human's are unique in the most literal reading of this sentence, we don't have anything else like humans. But the context is the ability to reason and people denying that a machine is reasoning, even though it looks like reasoning.
> Unless you mean "fundamentally unique" in some way that would persist - like "nothing could ever do what humans do".
> I don't really know what your argument is.
I just said that I think that we have very good reasons for believing that human cognition is unique. The response was seemingly that we don't have enough of an understanding of intelligence to make that judgment. I've stated that I think we do have enough of an understanding of intelligence to make that judgment, and I've appealed to the many advances in relevant feilds.
What's the better interpretation of their position?