3 ms·
What this shows us is that GPT-3 doesn't really understand what it is talking about and is just a decently good bullshitter. To be frank, I've met humans with t
by AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
What this shows us is that GPT-3 doesn't really understand what it is talking about and is just a decently good bullshitter. To be frank, I've met humans with the same quality of always speaking with confidence about things they have no understanding of. Possibly this is a result of how the system is constructed, GPT-3 being forced to answer but not able to express uncertainty, for instance. At any rate I do not believe it is sufficient evidence that GPT-3 is not, in some way, conscious.
- mdp2021 4y ago> I've met humans with the same quality of always speaking with confidence You should have met some devoid of any expected key for understanding, for that matter. But if they had read the whole of the available encyclopedias, it would be interesting neurologically (à la Oliver Sacks) what determines their pseudorandom nonsense. Not paramount, just potentially interesting. Although, surely, that reinforces the perception of one lacking in below said "operational description of Intelligence": that held ideas are criticized. > is not, in some way At this stage, I would prefer that first we achieve the milestone of "Intelligent", operationally described many times and practically meaning "something that makes it worth to listen to what you output", before going into more difficult areas.