I am not enthusiastic about criteria for human-like intelligence that imply that dyslexic people don't have human-like intelligence.
[EDITED to add:] I actually don't know whether dyslexic people find it difficult to count letters in words, if they have them already written down by someone else. I suspect they find it harder than people who aren't dyslexic. But perhaps "blind people whose spelling is poor" would have been better; I would not want to deny them human-like intelligence either.
I have slight dyslexia. I can't automatically write double consonants all the time.
But counting certain type of letters is very simple algorithmic task especially in written text. Any reasonably intelligent actually thinking thing should come up with algo and then execute it. Which to me sounds like reasonable minimum bar for general intelligence.
Exactly. It's got nothing to do with sensory input and everything to do with reasoning.
If someone asked me how many f's are in a word I hadn't seen before verbally, then a reasoned response would be that I don't know, but I estimate based on the syllables...or ask them to spell it out.
These are all the sorts of questions where general problem solving works, even if the conclusion is "I don't have enough data to speculate".
So that these models fall apart on it so readily means we're either grossly handicapping then with the requirement to "be helpful" or they just fail to recognize the problem and are just stochastically spitting out a high probability token sequence for the input.
If you aren't an excellent speller and you are asked to count the number of some letter occurring in a passage of text, you will look at its written/printed form and go through the letters one by one. This is, indeed, a pretty easy task and you will probably get it right if you're careful.
The models don't get to see the text written down. By the time your input reaches them at all it's been converted into tokens. By the time they start thinking about it its been converted into embeddings in a sort of concepts-and-word-fragments space.
I do think it's a definite weakness of most LLM systems that they are bad at admitting (maybe because they're bad at knowing) when they don't really know something. (I have the impression that Anthropic's models are better at this than OpenAI's, but that isn't based on careful research or anything.)
What's the actual behaviour of today's LLM systems on these questions when they're allowed to "think"? Someone upthread mentioned that Sonnet 5 at "medium" thinking level mostly gets them right but makes mistakes sometimes. It would be interesting if we could see what its chain-of-thought looks like in these cases.
... I just tried six questions of this kind on Sonnet 5 at "medium" thinking -- this is the default thing you get from free-Claude -- and it got them all right in a way that at least superficially looks as if it's spelling them out and counting. Obviously this isn't enough to guarantee that there isn't anything grossly wrong with its reasoning capabilities in this area, but it doesn't look to me like "falling apart" and it doesn't look like strong evidence that thinking of it as a stochastic parrot is helpful here.
[EDITED to add:] I actually don't know whether dyslexic people find it difficult to count letters in words, if they have them already written down by someone else. I suspect they find it harder than people who aren't dyslexic. But perhaps "blind people whose spelling is poor" would have been better; I would not want to deny them human-like intelligence either.