3 ms·

> 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 emot

> 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)
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    I guess my point is that at no point has anyone shown that it is easy to get a language model to pass a turing test. This one can't even count words.
    - GaggiX 4y ago
      The point you brought from the beginning was that a language model cannot beat a Turing test, and the only actual "argument" you brought was: he failed in X task, and the conclusion was, "he doesn't understand reality", what would happen if he actually answered correctly? Would he have suddenly acquired the ability to understand reality? I don't think so; To me it is clear that this AI already has a deep understanding of reality and the fact that chatGPT failed a task doesn't convince me otherwise and it shouldn't convince you either, these kinds of "arguments" usually fall short very soon as history has shown, you can find a lot of articles and posts on the net carrying arguments like yours (even from 2022) that have been outdated by now, the point is that these neural networks are flexible enough to understand you when you write, understand reality when you ask about geography or anything else, and flexible enough to beat a Turing test even when they are trained "only" on text and do not need to experience reality themselves, and the imitation game (as it was called by Turing) can be beaten by a machine that has been trained to imitate, no matter if the machine is "really" thinking or just "simulating thinking" (the Chinese room), beating the test wouldn't be a step toward artificial general intelligence as a lot of people seems to erroneously believe, the actual step toward artificial general intelligence is alignment, maybe agents etc

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)
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  I guess my point is that at no point has anyone shown that it is easy to get a language model to pass a turing test. This one can't even count words.
  - GaggiX 4y ago
    The point you brought from the beginning was that a language model cannot beat a Turing test, and the only actual "argument" you brought was: he failed in X task, and the conclusion was, "he doesn't understand reality", what would happen if he actually answered correctly? Would he have suddenly acquired the ability to understand reality? I don't think so; To me it is clear that this AI already has a deep understanding of reality and the fact that chatGPT failed a task doesn't convince me otherwise and it shouldn't convince you either, these kinds of "arguments" usually fall short very soon as history has shown, you can find a lot of articles and posts on the net carrying arguments like yours (even from 2022) that have been outdated by now, the point is that these neural networks are flexible enough to understand you when you write, understand reality when you ask about geography or anything else, and flexible enough to beat a Turing test even when they are trained "only" on text and do not need to experience reality themselves, and the imitation game (as it was called by Turing) can be beaten by a machine that has been trained to imitate, no matter if the machine is "really" thinking or just "simulating thinking" (the Chinese room), beating the test wouldn't be a step toward artificial general intelligence as a lot of people seems to erroneously believe, the actual step toward artificial general intelligence is alignment, maybe agents etc