4 ms·

There is a point to discussing this because to me and thousands of others who have used it extensively, ChatGPT is capable of thought. Clearly it has limits bu

There is a point to discussing this because to me and thousands of others who have used it extensively, ChatGPT is capable of thought. Clearly it has limits but we are not talking about whether it is capable of all thoughts - we are talking about whether it's capable of any thoughts! In a very broad way it has a similar architecture (based on neurons and weights) to something we know does think. (The human mind.) In terms of its ability to handle abstract thoughts, it shows a degree of such ability. I've had ChatGPT come up with independent thoughts scores of times, just like a mind does. The human brain is just a "synthesis program" too so your sentence "what is expected from a synthesis program" is misleading. What is eventually reasonably expected from a synthesis program is the same ability to think that a human mind has. That is not the goal post today: the goal post today is "does Chatgpt show any understanding or capability for independent thought" and the answer to those people like me who have used it for such purposes is a resounding yes, it does. You are saying it is like a printing press, just mechanically putting sentences together without understanding. I am saying it is more like a child, clearly showing some ability to understand, some demonstration of reason, some independent thought, some creativity, some deduction, and lots of childlike errors. But what good is a newborn child, right?

smoldesu 4y ago
Neurons and weights don't amount to sentience though; that's machine learning 101. So, let's talk: does ChatGPT have any thoughts? No! Unless you consider the actual propagation/synthesis step to be "thinking", there is absolutely no point where the model abstracts reality or formulates thought outside of what it generates. There is no side-model that is constantly running a human consciousness, it's only concept of reality and existence is whatever it's training data suggests for the next word. That's not thought, and it shouldn't have to be argued. When a calculator adds two numbers together, it's not "thinking". Same principle applies for a tensor and an AI model. When text is being annealed from noise, thought is not happening. The illusion of thought appears, but there is no point in which ChatGPT formulates ideas that you don't directly see. Independent thought is impossible for it. I'll strongman this argument until I die, so feel free to keep linking examples. It's actually pretty fun picking apart AI responses and revealing their hollow quirks.
- logicallee 4y ago
  Thanks for the response. ChatGPT isn't put in a VR environment, has no sensory input, and receives the entire chat so far in each response, it is completely transient. So there's really no need to jump to consciousness or sentience. Instead we can simply focus on whether it is thinking successfully, without needing to address any issue of consciousness. Let's be careful of not falling into "is a submarine swimming?" Obviously it's processsing while it is working, we can see it from its delays and while it spits out text. So the real reason we're having this discussion is to see whether the processing amounts to any useful manipulation of concepts. Personally, I find those manipulations useful. To me that means it is thinking. Otherwise why would I be interacting with it so much in an interactive way?

smoldesu 4y ago

Neurons and weights don't amount to sentience though; that's machine learning 101. So, let's talk: does ChatGPT have any thoughts? No! Unless you consider the actual propagation/synthesis step to be "thinking", there is absolutely no point where the model abstracts reality or formulates thought outside of what it generates. There is no side-model that is constantly running a human consciousness, it's only concept of reality and existence is whatever it's training data suggests for the next word. That's not thought, and it shouldn't have to be argued. When a calculator adds two numbers together, it's not "thinking". Same principle applies for a tensor and an AI model. When text is being annealed from noise, thought is not happening. The illusion of thought appears, but there is no point in which ChatGPT formulates ideas that you don't directly see. Independent thought is impossible for it. I'll strongman this argument until I die, so feel free to keep linking examples. It's actually pretty fun picking apart AI responses and revealing their hollow quirks.

logicallee 4y ago
Thanks for the response. ChatGPT isn't put in a VR environment, has no sensory input, and receives the entire chat so far in each response, it is completely transient. So there's really no need to jump to consciousness or sentience. Instead we can simply focus on whether it is thinking successfully, without needing to address any issue of consciousness. Let's be careful of not falling into "is a submarine swimming?" Obviously it's processsing while it is working, we can see it from its delays and while it spits out text. So the real reason we're having this discussion is to see whether the processing amounts to any useful manipulation of concepts. Personally, I find those manipulations useful. To me that means it is thinking. Otherwise why would I be interacting with it so much in an interactive way?