4 ms·

There is zero evidence for the AGI claim or even a weaker intelligence claim. GPT 3 is just a search engine on steroids. I'm regularly suprised by the results b

by jmfldn 4y ago

There is zero evidence for the AGI claim or even a weaker intelligence claim. GPT 3 is just a search engine on steroids. I'm regularly suprised by the results but it's honestly just an illusion as far as 'intelligence' goes. This has nothing to do with intelligence, and anyone who thinks otherwise is succumbing to the Eliza effect.

hackerlight 4y ago
Why can't the same thing be said of human intelligence? If we knew more about neuroscience it'd probably seem just as trivial. Wetware trained on examples we've seen. Experience encoding neurons. Neurons running on the laws of physics. Data goes in, endogenous processing happens, then outputs. I don't see why it's categorically different. ANNs are just demystified because we made them and know how they work.
- jmfldn 4y ago
  You've answered your own question. "why can't the same thing be said of human intelligence" "if we knew more about neuroscience..." So that's why we can't say the same thing. Fwiw, my take is that whatever the brain does, its a machine of some sort but possibly not even a turing machine. Many disagree but noone can prove me wrong. Yet at least.
  - pennaMan 4y ago
    So are we intelligence or just a pattern recognition system on steroids?
    - jmfldn 4y ago
      The human mind in its totality, ie including consciousness, is a fundamentally different kind of machine to a computer. It's a machine, there is nothing supernatural here, and I am not invoking a 'god of the gaps' argument. However, like Roger Penrose, I think that our consciousness is not a computation for example. That kind of thing seems pretty key. If that is true, and what we call 'understanding' is a function of consciousness, then that's going to have implications. It doesn't matter by the way, if Turing machines can't replicate human minds, why would we want that anyway? "Intelligent" systems that provide outputs and solve problems for us is what we want right? I think we'll have something that is, for all intents and purposes, "AGI", using classical computers. A 'philosophical zombie' in other words.

by jmfldn 4y ago

hackerlight 4y ago

Why can't the same thing be said of human intelligence? If we knew more about neuroscience it'd probably seem just as trivial. Wetware trained on examples we've seen. Experience encoding neurons. Neurons running on the laws of physics. Data goes in, endogenous processing happens, then outputs. I don't see why it's categorically different. ANNs are just demystified because we made them and know how they work.

jmfldn 4y ago
You've answered your own question. "why can't the same thing be said of human intelligence" "if we knew more about neuroscience..." So that's why we can't say the same thing. Fwiw, my take is that whatever the brain does, its a machine of some sort but possibly not even a turing machine. Many disagree but noone can prove me wrong. Yet at least.
- pennaMan 4y ago
  So are we intelligence or just a pattern recognition system on steroids?
  - jmfldn 4y ago
    The human mind in its totality, ie including consciousness, is a fundamentally different kind of machine to a computer. It's a machine, there is nothing supernatural here, and I am not invoking a 'god of the gaps' argument. However, like Roger Penrose, I think that our consciousness is not a computation for example. That kind of thing seems pretty key. If that is true, and what we call 'understanding' is a function of consciousness, then that's going to have implications. It doesn't matter by the way, if Turing machines can't replicate human minds, why would we want that anyway? "Intelligent" systems that provide outputs and solve problems for us is what we want right? I think we'll have something that is, for all intents and purposes, "AGI", using classical computers. A 'philosophical zombie' in other words.