4 ms·
It is because of alan turing. The turing test has arbitrarily put the bar at “must successfully emulate a human being to be labeled general intelligence”. I do
by Joeri 4y ago
It is because of alan turing. The turing test has arbitrarily put the bar at “must successfully emulate a human being to be labeled general intelligence”.
I don’t find the turing test useful at all as a benchmark. We don’t need something to successfully emulate a human to do useful intelligent work. ChatGPT can already do that work in many domains and many languages, if working as an assistant to a human. I honestly don’t know why we shouldn’t call that general intelligence.
The argument “but it doesn’t understand” is not useful either, and it is the one I read most from people who deeply understand how it works. Many (most?) people don’t really understand what they do for a living either, they’re just going through the motions and need supervision to prevent then going off the rails. Just like ChatGPT. And still someone finds their “intelligence” useful enough to pay them for it.
- lostmsu 4y agoI can see why not believing Turing Test is a useful benchmark means that you can't deduce ChatGPT is sentient from it being able to pass one. But how do you deduce it is not AGI without some other reasonable benchmark? Moreover, how can you deduce GPT-4 can't spontaneously become one even in principle without having that benchmark? Those two are the questions to the skeptics really.
- dr_dshiv 4y agoRight. I don’t see why human-level AI is the criteria for AGI. I think we can have weak AGI, potentially long before we have strong AGI. We need clear benchmarks, otherwise it turns into theology.