For example, one prevailing counterpoint is that LLMs don’t have a body. Yet the writers remind us of examples like physicist Stephen Hawking, who interacted nearly entirely through text and synthesized speech. His physical limitations did not diminish his intelligence; therefore, motor capabilities should not be a prerequisite for intelligence, the authors suggest.
“This is an emotionally charged topic because it challenges human exceptionalism and our standing as being uniquely intelligent,” says Belkin. “Copernicus displaced humans from the center of the universe, Darwin displaced humans from a privileged place in nature; now we are contending with the prospect that there are more kinds of minds than we had previously entertained.”
Acknowledging that machines are capable of intelligence matching that of humans can be a frightening prospect. Concerns about potential social upheaval is enough for some to fervently deny the possibility, a “heads in the sand” response as Turing described in his 1950 paper. Chen, Belkin, Bergen and Danks suggest embracing the emotions that arise with compassionate curiosity, not anxious evasion.
Risks and rewards
There’s no denying that we’re in the midst of an unprecedented technological revolution as artificial intelligence pervades our personal and professional lives. The authors position this period as both “remarkable and concerning,” with plentiful possibility and significant responsibility.
In the essay, the experts describe numerous economic demands that are placed on LLMs, which they claim can distort true assessments about whether artificial general intelligence has arrived. Industry leaders often set standards based on profitability rather than intelligence itself—demanding perfect reliability, instant learning or revolutionary discoveries that exceed what we require of individual humans. Yet the UC San Diego faculty point out that speed, efficiency and profitability are simply a potential output of general intelligence, not a defining quality.
