3 ms·
Don’t we have a problem then? By nature of effective communication, AI could never prove to you it understands something, since any sufficient understanding of
by dclowd9901 4y ago
Don’t we have a problem then? By nature of effective communication, AI could never prove to you it understands something, since any sufficient understanding of a topic would be met with an answer that could be hand-waved as “Well that’s the most statistically likely answer.” Newsflash: this basically overlaps 100% with any human’s most effective answer.
I think I’m beginning to understand the problem here. The folks here who keep poo-pooing these interactions don’t just see the AIs as unconscious robots. I think they see everyone that way.
- danaris 4y agoNo; what we need, in order to be willing to believe that understanding is happening, is to know that the underlying structures fundamentally allow that. ChatGPT's underlying structures do not. What it does, effectively, is look at the totality of the conversation thus far, and use the characters and words in it, combined with its training data, to predict, purely statistically, what characters would constitute an appropriate response. I know that some people like to argue that what humans do cannot be meaningfully distinguished from this, but I reject this notion utterly. I know that my own thought processes do not resemble this procedure, and I believe that other people's are similar.
- dclowd9901 4y ago“Thought processes” is a funny term, don’t you think, for something that is somehow distinguishable from processes that we’ve designed and somehow understand down to the cellular (node) level. It’s all emergent behavior from a system that behaves under process.