5 ms·

> It takes time, but you're able to mull over hypotheticals and chase parallel lines of reasoning that AI cannot. How do you know that doesn't happen in some l

> It takes time, but you're able to mull over hypotheticals and chase parallel lines of reasoning that AI cannot. How do you know that doesn't happen in some latent space? > It's foremost goal is writing coherent text, not being right or wrong or minimizing human risk. That's also true for human bullshitters, it doesn't mean that they're not intelligent.

smoldesu 4y ago
> How do you know that doesn't happen in some latent space? If it does, then it contradicts what OpenAI says about their own product. GPT is an autoregressive model trained on text. It's sole purpose, as designed, is to complete text using stochastic reasoning based on the text it learned from. It seems incredibly unlikely (to me) that someone would deliberately mis-design such a system to be capable of independent thought. If you have evidence of some additional processing layer, I'd love to hear it though. > That's also true for human bullshitters, it doesn't mean that they're not intelligent. Bullshit by any other name smells just as bad.
- chpatrick 4y ago
  > If it does, then it contradicts what OpenAI says about their own product. GPT is an autoregressive model trained on text. It's sole purpose, as designed, is to complete text using stochastic reasoning based on the text it learned from. University students complete text using stochastic reasoning based on text they learnt from. Again, that doesn't mean they're not intelligent. > It seems incredibly unlikely (to me) that someone would deliberately mis-design such a system to be capable of independent thought. If you train something to produce convincing text then it's perfectly reasonable that it could develop these faculties. > If you have evidence of some additional processing layer, I'd love to hear it though. I don't think either of us can conclusively claim that a 175-billion parameter model either does or doesn't do something. I just think there's no particular reason it couldn't. > Bullshit by any other name smells just as bad. The question isn't whether GPT produces bullshit or not (it often does), but whether it's fundamentally incapable of thinking like a person. People bullshit too so I don't think that really proves anything.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    GPT is fundamentally incapable of thinking like a person. People experience life in a very different way than GPT, and even if we treat all living life as AI-equivalent, GPT would still be a poor approximation of human thought. Even if ChatGPT did develop a personal narrative unbeknownst to it's programmers, that internal dialogue would still be inhuman. I really don't know what to tell you. You're free to believe whatever you want, but the simplest feasible explanation is the science we used to make these models. At no point was integrating human-like thought a consideration of the model. Just human-like speech.
    - chpatrick 4y ago
      I think to communicate like a human you need to be able to think like a human, at least to the point where it's indistuinguishable. That's the whole point of the turing test.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        The point of the Chinese Room Test is to distinguish between Turing's definition of intelligence and the human definition of intelligence. It poses two separate possibilities; is this AI understanding the language, or simulating the ability to understand the language? You might find the answer to be arbitrary or meaningless, but it is an important distinction. I could pretend to be a random number generator well enough to fool anyone who's distinguishing me from a computer. That doesn't mean that I'm a reliable source of entropy, or equally as random as the other, similar result. Treated as a black-box they are the same; treated as a mechanical system, they could not be more different.
        chpatrick 4y ago
        There's no such thing as a "chinese room test". The point of the thought experiment is that from the point of view of the person outside the room it doesn't matter if the person inside the room speaks chinese or is just following rules. If you're only corresponding with them by text you can't tell the difference. It's exactly the same with large language model and why I don't think statements like "oh it doesn't have intelligence/doesn't "REALLY" understand/it' "only" a large language model" don't really make any sense. As far as I know I could be talking to a large language model right now, but I'm not accusing you of not understanding. It's like the aliens coming to our planets and saying we can't be intelligent because we're made of meat.

smoldesu 4y ago

> How do you know that doesn't happen in some latent space? If it does, then it contradicts what OpenAI says about their own product. GPT is an autoregressive model trained on text. It's sole purpose, as designed, is to complete text using stochastic reasoning based on the text it learned from. It seems incredibly unlikely (to me) that someone would deliberately mis-design such a system to be capable of independent thought. If you have evidence of some additional processing layer, I'd love to hear it though. > That's also true for human bullshitters, it doesn't mean that they're not intelligent. Bullshit by any other name smells just as bad.

chpatrick 4y ago
> If it does, then it contradicts what OpenAI says about their own product. GPT is an autoregressive model trained on text. It's sole purpose, as designed, is to complete text using stochastic reasoning based on the text it learned from. University students complete text using stochastic reasoning based on text they learnt from. Again, that doesn't mean they're not intelligent. > It seems incredibly unlikely (to me) that someone would deliberately mis-design such a system to be capable of independent thought. If you train something to produce convincing text then it's perfectly reasonable that it could develop these faculties. > If you have evidence of some additional processing layer, I'd love to hear it though. I don't think either of us can conclusively claim that a 175-billion parameter model either does or doesn't do something. I just think there's no particular reason it couldn't. > Bullshit by any other name smells just as bad. The question isn't whether GPT produces bullshit or not (it often does), but whether it's fundamentally incapable of thinking like a person. People bullshit too so I don't think that really proves anything.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  GPT is fundamentally incapable of thinking like a person. People experience life in a very different way than GPT, and even if we treat all living life as AI-equivalent, GPT would still be a poor approximation of human thought. Even if ChatGPT did develop a personal narrative unbeknownst to it's programmers, that internal dialogue would still be inhuman. I really don't know what to tell you. You're free to believe whatever you want, but the simplest feasible explanation is the science we used to make these models. At no point was integrating human-like thought a consideration of the model. Just human-like speech.
  - chpatrick 4y ago
    I think to communicate like a human you need to be able to think like a human, at least to the point where it's indistuinguishable. That's the whole point of the turing test.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      The point of the Chinese Room Test is to distinguish between Turing's definition of intelligence and the human definition of intelligence. It poses two separate possibilities; is this AI understanding the language, or simulating the ability to understand the language? You might find the answer to be arbitrary or meaningless, but it is an important distinction. I could pretend to be a random number generator well enough to fool anyone who's distinguishing me from a computer. That doesn't mean that I'm a reliable source of entropy, or equally as random as the other, similar result. Treated as a black-box they are the same; treated as a mechanical system, they could not be more different.
      - chpatrick 4y ago
        There's no such thing as a "chinese room test". The point of the thought experiment is that from the point of view of the person outside the room it doesn't matter if the person inside the room speaks chinese or is just following rules. If you're only corresponding with them by text you can't tell the difference. It's exactly the same with large language model and why I don't think statements like "oh it doesn't have intelligence/doesn't "REALLY" understand/it' "only" a large language model" don't really make any sense. As far as I know I could be talking to a large language model right now, but I'm not accusing you of not understanding. It's like the aliens coming to our planets and saying we can't be intelligent because we're made of meat.