3 ms·

GPT itself is in no way comparable to a person in terms of understanding. It makes no effort to determine the meaning of prompts or its training data. Instead,

GPT itself is in no way comparable to a person in terms of understanding. It makes no effort to determine the meaning of prompts or its training data. Instead, we are comparing the understanding of a person (who takes the SAT and scores something) against the logical soundness of a set of expressions written by other people (the training data), all weighted by GPT's ability to semantically transform those expressions into new expressions (answers).

pornel 4y ago
To me debating whether AI really understands anything is as irrelevant as asking whether submarines can swim. It performs tasks, and does them in its own way.
- EGreg 4y ago
  Anyone know the Chinese Room experiment by Searle? GPT-3 was made for that :)
  - eternalban 4y ago
    As discussed previously on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=the%20Chinese%20room%20argument&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Searle's thought experiment is due for an update. The entire force of the argument is simply to refute using Turing's Imitation game as a means of determining whether machines can think. In Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Turing wrote: "The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the ‘imitation game’. It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either ‘X is A and Y is B’ or ‘X is B and Y is A’. The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B thus: [question/answer follows ...] "We now ask the question, ‘What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?’ Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, ‘Can machines think?’" https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238 https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238 To misquote Djikstra, the Turing test is as relevant to question of machine intelligence as an underwater mobility test is to the question of whether a submarine is an artificial fish.
- eternalban 4y ago
  The full Edsger Dijkstra paragraph: " The Fathers of the field had been pretty confusing: John von Neumann speculated about computers and the human brain in analogies sufficiently wild to be worthy of a medieval thinker and Alan M. Turing thought about criteria to settle the question of whether Machines Can Think, a question of which we now know that it is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim." https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD898.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E... > It performs tasks, and does them in its own way. The question is this: Are submarines 'artificial fish'? (Dijkstra's typically cranky rant* was addressing something entirely different - note the title of the talk.) * this humble HN user is simply channeling the iconoclastic spirit of the 'great man'.
  - pornel 4y ago
    I'm just a neural network rehashing previous inputs.
    - eternalban 4y ago
      How could you possibly know that ..

pornel 4y ago

To me debating whether AI really understands anything is as irrelevant as asking whether submarines can swim. It performs tasks, and does them in its own way.

EGreg 4y ago
Anyone know the Chinese Room experiment by Searle? GPT-3 was made for that :)
- eternalban 4y ago
  As discussed previously on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=the%20Chinese%20room%20argument&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Searle's thought experiment is due for an update. The entire force of the argument is simply to refute using Turing's Imitation game as a means of determining whether machines can think. In Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Turing wrote: "The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the ‘imitation game’. It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either ‘X is A and Y is B’ or ‘X is B and Y is A’. The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B thus: [question/answer follows ...] "We now ask the question, ‘What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?’ Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, ‘Can machines think?’" https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238 https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238 To misquote Djikstra, the Turing test is as relevant to question of machine intelligence as an underwater mobility test is to the question of whether a submarine is an artificial fish.
eternalban 4y ago
The full Edsger Dijkstra paragraph: " The Fathers of the field had been pretty confusing: John von Neumann speculated about computers and the human brain in analogies sufficiently wild to be worthy of a medieval thinker and Alan M. Turing thought about criteria to settle the question of whether Machines Can Think, a question of which we now know that it is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim." https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD898.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E... > It performs tasks, and does them in its own way. The question is this: Are submarines 'artificial fish'? (Dijkstra's typically cranky rant* was addressing something entirely different - note the title of the talk.) * this humble HN user is simply channeling the iconoclastic spirit of the 'great man'.
- pornel 4y ago
  I'm just a neural network rehashing previous inputs.
  - eternalban 4y ago
    How could you possibly know that ..