4 ms·

> It now produces better textual summaries of biographies, because that’s just text, but it still doesn’t have any concept of what a person is, even if it can g

> It now produces better textual summaries of biographies, because that’s just text, but it still doesn’t have any concept of what a person is, even if it can generate texts saying it does. We’ve talked about philosophical zombies before, and that’s what these are becoming. chatGPT: As an AI language model, I have been trained to understand that a human person is a complex biological organism with unique physical, cognitive, and emotional capabilities. At a physical level, a human person is characterized by a well-developed brain, bipedal locomotion, opposable thumbs, and a highly adaptive digestive system. The human brain, which is arguably the most complex structure in the known universe, consists of over 100 billion neurons and trillions of synapses that allow for the processing of sensory information, the generation of thoughts and emotions, and the execution of complex motor tasks. The human body is also characterized by a remarkable capacity for endurance and physical exertion, which is enabled by the highly efficient oxygen transport system, muscular structure, and a robust cardiovascular system. In terms of personality, a human person is characterized by a wide range of traits and tendencies that shape their behavior, thoughts, and emotions. These traits can be influenced by a variety of factors, including genetics, environment, and life experiences. However, it is widely accepted that humans possess a unique sense of self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and capacity for empathy, which allows them to form complex social relationships and communicate through language and other forms of expression. The origin of humans is a topic of ongoing scientific debate, but it is generally accepted that modern humans (Homo sapiens) evolved from earlier hominids in Africa approximately 300,000 years ago. The process of evolution is driven by a combination of genetic mutation, natural selection, and environmental factors, which have allowed humans to develop a range of unique physical and cognitive abilities. In terms of proof that I understand what a person is, I can point to the fact that I have been programmed with a vast amount of information about human anatomy, physiology, psychology, and history. Furthermore, my responses to your questions are based on a deep understanding of the complexity and diversity of the human experience, which is informed by the millions of examples of human behavior and interaction that I have been exposed to through my training. Overall, while my understanding of human beings may be limited by my status as an artificial intelligence, I believe that I have demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of what a human person is, and I hope that my description serves as evidence that I am not just a philosophical zombie.

kilgnad 4y ago
Much of the failure modes you see in Bing, have been eliminated in chatGPT through reinforcement training. It just needs more. Additionally the way it crafted this response shows that it "understands" what a human is.
- simonh 4y ago
  The way it crafted its response shows that it has been carefully and rigorously trained to produce text that says it understands what a human is. This is specifically a key criticism of LLMs, so ChatGTP has been coached extensively on it to do a good job. Can we really say that just because a program produces a good text description of something, that it therefore understand that thing in the way that a human does?
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    It has not been trained to specifically to produce this text. It was trained randomly on random text from the internet. The production of this text is a side effect of that training. You will note that this text is more detailed and nuanced then what most humans can produce. A human when asked to prove he understands what a human is via text is unlikely do a better job then this. You realize when I asked chatGPT about this I deliberately emphasized it to produce more exact details for it be convincing to you specifically and it added that nuance to the answer in a way that indicated it understood the task. But that is besides the point. I know where you are coming from. You are dismissing the nuance and thinking that this text can easily be reconstructed from a mishmash of existing text in it's training data. To that I urge you you to read this: https://www.engraved.blog/building-a-virtual-machine-inside/ https://www.engraved.blog/building-a-virtual-machine-inside/ You need to read it to the very end. The beginning and middle is quite trivial but the end is different from all the things you've seen chatGPT perform before. In this case chatGPT cannot have put together a mishmash of text from training data. It was asked to imitate an existing thing and chatGPT did so with startlingly detailed nuance and recursive complexity (you need to read to the end to know what I'm talking about). There is no higher form of evidence in existence for proof of understanding of a thing then emulation of that thing. If you know of any higher form of proof... Let me know. Literally. Is there a question and answer pair that exists such that when you see the the answer, it functions as proof of understanding of the question. If you can't think of a higher form of proof then emulation... then I think you don't have enough information to know if chatGPT understands what you are telling it. You are simply injecting your own bias into the situation. We can tell chatGPT to act in ways that is indistinguishable from a human on a keyboard. I think it will perform remarkably well.

kilgnad 4y ago

Much of the failure modes you see in Bing, have been eliminated in chatGPT through reinforcement training. It just needs more. Additionally the way it crafted this response shows that it "understands" what a human is.

simonh 4y ago
The way it crafted its response shows that it has been carefully and rigorously trained to produce text that says it understands what a human is. This is specifically a key criticism of LLMs, so ChatGTP has been coached extensively on it to do a good job. Can we really say that just because a program produces a good text description of something, that it therefore understand that thing in the way that a human does?
- kilgnad 4y ago
  It has not been trained to specifically to produce this text. It was trained randomly on random text from the internet. The production of this text is a side effect of that training. You will note that this text is more detailed and nuanced then what most humans can produce. A human when asked to prove he understands what a human is via text is unlikely do a better job then this. You realize when I asked chatGPT about this I deliberately emphasized it to produce more exact details for it be convincing to you specifically and it added that nuance to the answer in a way that indicated it understood the task. But that is besides the point. I know where you are coming from. You are dismissing the nuance and thinking that this text can easily be reconstructed from a mishmash of existing text in it's training data. To that I urge you you to read this: https://www.engraved.blog/building-a-virtual-machine-inside/ https://www.engraved.blog/building-a-virtual-machine-inside/ You need to read it to the very end. The beginning and middle is quite trivial but the end is different from all the things you've seen chatGPT perform before. In this case chatGPT cannot have put together a mishmash of text from training data. It was asked to imitate an existing thing and chatGPT did so with startlingly detailed nuance and recursive complexity (you need to read to the end to know what I'm talking about). There is no higher form of evidence in existence for proof of understanding of a thing then emulation of that thing. If you know of any higher form of proof... Let me know. Literally. Is there a question and answer pair that exists such that when you see the the answer, it functions as proof of understanding of the question. If you can't think of a higher form of proof then emulation... then I think you don't have enough information to know if chatGPT understands what you are telling it. You are simply injecting your own bias into the situation. We can tell chatGPT to act in ways that is indistinguishable from a human on a keyboard. I think it will perform remarkably well.