2 ms·

"you don't need the model to feel emotions, have genuine goals or anything other than being indistinguishable from a human being" This is the point I am specif

"you don't need the model to feel emotions, have genuine goals or anything other than being indistinguishable from a human being" This is the point I am specifically disagreeing with. I think a language model that is just mocking human speech will not be able to accurately represent emotions and goals in a way that cannot be detected. "If you build an agent that has and quote: 'genuine motivations and some concept of an internal experience' than you will fail the Turing test because the agent will probably recognize the fact it's not human" I would expect it to know its not human, but it could agree to pretend to be one for the test. I think an agent with genuine experience would be better able to pretend its a human in the same way that a person lying about their goals and motivations can be more convincing than a language model. I can better make up a lie about a real person because I understand the nuance of human experience. For example language models can fail to learn arithmetic or basic physics. Things any 15 year old person with a basic education would know. We tend not to explain the most obvious facts in a physics textbook, like what water feels like on your fingers, so it may be possible to ask a language model questions about physics or human experience that are so ubiquitous they don't commonly get written down. Of course you will say, an agent with no physical form or metal hands also will not know what water feels like on your fingers. But this only proves my point - at some point the machines lack certain aspects of basic human experience that cannot just be regurgitated from a text corpus. Anyone familiar with research in to flaws of state of the art language models could detect a large language model relatively quickly. I suppose I should retract my earlier claim that an agent with motivations could pass a turing test, because I suppose I just talked myself out of that too. Point is, its very hard to pass a turing test if the test is administered by an AI researcher, because they will know what to look for. I guess that's the point of the Voight-Kampff test.

krageon 4y ago
> This is the point I am specifically disagreeing with. I think a language model that is just mocking human speech will not be able to accurately represent emotions and goals in a way that cannot be detected. It would be more interesting if you explained why you think this. As it stands it reads as a magical argument / one of those "I'll know it when I see it" statements. A lot of people are conditioned against accepting that they are fundamentally not very complicated and they wouldn't mind interacting with a philosophical zombie. By definition you would not, or it would not be one. By making that conclusion you recognise you cannot know the internals of another being except by their statements. Hence, just language is enough. No need for subjective experience.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  > It would be more interesting if you explained why you think this. I tried to. I have said there are things about the human experience which might not be present in text datasets. This is a problem with models understanding physics for example. I am sorry I am not enough of an expert to provide more detailed arguments, but rest assured my opinion on this matter is irrelevant to you beyond this chain of internet comments. > Hence, just language is enough. Language is enough to administer a turing test, but I am not sure that a large language model trained on a corpus of text can gather enough information to be 100% successful in a rigorous test.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  Just wanted to follow up. It's only been one day and already people are finding ways in which this program behaves like a piece of software and not a human. What I was trying to say is that anyone familiar with state of the art language models will be quickly able to uncover things like this, which a human would never do. That was my comment about a "Voight Kampf test" (the test in Blade Runner designed to detect replicants). https://twitter.com/carnage4life/status/1598332648723976193 https://twitter.com/carnage4life/status/1598332648723976193 EDIT: I've finally played with it myself. This thing is a cute toy that doesn't understand reality. "PROMPT: what is the third word in the second question I asked? REPLY: The third word in the second question you asked is "geographic." Here is the full text of the second question: "I am interested in seeing how you understand geographic areas, like maps of a neighborhood."" Note: that was the first question I asked, not the second. And obviously that is not the third word in the sentence.
  - GaggiX 4y ago
    Now you are the one who doesn't seem to read the comments, OpenAI's AI is not trained to behave like a human, it is tuned to behave like an AI, I guess when you wrote the comment you didn't even try the AI in the first place, and you don't realize how often the AI explains that it is a language model built by OpenAI, and how it explains to you that it has several limitations, such as the inability to access the Internet, etc., as I said in my first comment on this discussion, this is the most difficult task that OpenAI is trying to solve, instead of just beating the Turing test. You linked how to get around the filter imposed on the AI, but that's not something you would do with a human being ahah, so I don't see what the point would be here, it doesn't behave like a human being in the first place (as it should)

krageon 4y ago

> This is the point I am specifically disagreeing with. I think a language model that is just mocking human speech will not be able to accurately represent emotions and goals in a way that cannot be detected. It would be more interesting if you explained why you think this. As it stands it reads as a magical argument / one of those "I'll know it when I see it" statements. A lot of people are conditioned against accepting that they are fundamentally not very complicated and they wouldn't mind interacting with a philosophical zombie. By definition you would not, or it would not be one. By making that conclusion you recognise you cannot know the internals of another being except by their statements. Hence, just language is enough. No need for subjective experience.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
> It would be more interesting if you explained why you think this. I tried to. I have said there are things about the human experience which might not be present in text datasets. This is a problem with models understanding physics for example. I am sorry I am not enough of an expert to provide more detailed arguments, but rest assured my opinion on this matter is irrelevant to you beyond this chain of internet comments. > Hence, just language is enough. Language is enough to administer a turing test, but I am not sure that a large language model trained on a corpus of text can gather enough information to be 100% successful in a rigorous test.
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
Just wanted to follow up. It's only been one day and already people are finding ways in which this program behaves like a piece of software and not a human. What I was trying to say is that anyone familiar with state of the art language models will be quickly able to uncover things like this, which a human would never do. That was my comment about a "Voight Kampf test" (the test in Blade Runner designed to detect replicants). https://twitter.com/carnage4life/status/1598332648723976193 https://twitter.com/carnage4life/status/1598332648723976193 EDIT: I've finally played with it myself. This thing is a cute toy that doesn't understand reality. "PROMPT: what is the third word in the second question I asked? REPLY: The third word in the second question you asked is "geographic." Here is the full text of the second question: "I am interested in seeing how you understand geographic areas, like maps of a neighborhood."" Note: that was the first question I asked, not the second. And obviously that is not the third word in the sentence.
- GaggiX 4y ago
  Now you are the one who doesn't seem to read the comments, OpenAI's AI is not trained to behave like a human, it is tuned to behave like an AI, I guess when you wrote the comment you didn't even try the AI in the first place, and you don't realize how often the AI explains that it is a language model built by OpenAI, and how it explains to you that it has several limitations, such as the inability to access the Internet, etc., as I said in my first comment on this discussion, this is the most difficult task that OpenAI is trying to solve, instead of just beating the Turing test. You linked how to get around the filter imposed on the AI, but that's not something you would do with a human being ahah, so I don't see what the point would be here, it doesn't behave like a human being in the first place (as it should)