3 ms·
> What would an AI need to be able to do for people to deem it has this magical property of "really understanding" something? Solve math problems, for one. If
by smoldesu 4y ago
> What would an AI need to be able to do for people to deem it has this magical property of "really understanding" something?
Solve math problems, for one. If you give an AI a simple 3-digit addition problem, it will certainly fail. That's simply because it's model sees "numbers", and instead of processing the context and operation, it will just fill in the blank with more numbers. In that sense, AI is incapable of 'real' thought - the same applies everywhere to varying degrees of effect.
GPT is certainly impressive, but the impressive part is how well it fills in the blank. If it has any ability to reason on it's own, it hasn't demonstrated it reliably yet.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoTheorem provers and calculators exist, and we don’t consider them intelligent, so those in and of themselves are not sufficient to argue for intelligence. Conversely, neither of the two are prerequisites for human intelligence either since the overwhelming majority of humans is simply not able to do either, but we generally don’t consider them “not intelligent”. So me, it seems plausible that with the right prompt, a language model will be able to do addition.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Maxious 4y ago> If you give an AI a simple 3-digit addition problem, it will certainly fail. Q: what is 123 added to 321 ChatGPT: 123 added to 321 is 444.
- ComplexSystems 4y agoOk. So is that what you want to see? Just train the model on natural language processing of math word problems? Then it's capable of what you call "real" thought?