4 ms·

Now instruct people who don't know how to play chess to pretend to know and play against someone. And when they fail because they don't know the rules and initi

Now instruct people who don't know how to play chess to pretend to know and play against someone. And when they fail because they don't know the rules and initially just mirrored their opponent, that's proof they're not a general intelligence?

Retric 4y ago
ChatGPT can say the rules of chess it just doesn’t understand them, thus stupidly rather than ignorance. Further if you watch the video it wasn’t moving the pieces incorrectly it was just creating them from thin air. This wasn’t like an 8 year old learning the game this was like your cat randomly hitting the keyboard.
- luckylion 4y ago
  > ChatGPT can say the rules of chess it just doesn’t understand them, thus stupidly rather than ignorance. It acts similar to a human that has a button for "recite chess rules" and presses it when you ask them to recite the chess rules. You'd then get a reply with the chess rules without the button-presser getting the same info, so they wouldn't gain any knowledge from it. I'm sure you can find a lot of people who could, if asked, read you the chess rules but even after reading wouldn't have understood them themselves. But are they not generally intelligent? I get a feeling that people compare ML-models to a smart person that concentrates on what you ask them, and LLMs fail in comparison but do so confidently. If you instead compare them to an average person at their daily average focus level, the ML probably looks pretty smart. I have a neighbor who is not very bright. He'll see some news on TV and will tell you about it, only he doesn't understand it and will just repeat words and half-sentences as best he can remember. He doesn't know he doesn't understand (or he does but doesn't care), so he'll confidently state utter nonsense. He's not smart and I wouldn't go to him for advice, but I think he qualifies as "intelligent" in the binary sense.
  - Retric 4y ago
    > I have a neighbor who is not very bright. Even a dumb person is vastly smarter than an ant. So when I am saying ChatGPT is dumb I mean compared to having a conversation with a person which seems like the only reasonable scale to use with a chat bot. ChatGPT’s model requires quite a of of processing power and sophistication to form its responses. It just doesn’t comprehend what it’s saying.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      Do you compare its conversational skills to a smart person or a dumb person? Because the result of the comparison will be very different, I believe. In other words: on a blind Turing test, if you can't tell apart ChatGPT from a dumb human, is the dumb human not generally intelligent? He also doesn't comprehend what he's saying once you get beyond basic things, and he's still vastly smarter than an ant. I'm sure you've talked to people before who used certain terms but it was obvious to you they didn't actually know what those terms meant. They're able to use them without understanding the concept. Just like ChatGPT, only that it's more likely to sound like ChatGPT understands the concept. What I'm trying to say: humans have a very clear limit to what concepts they can grasp. They can punch above their weight by pretending to understand a concept, but the proof is in the pudding, so unless they're able to apply it to solve problems, they haven't understood it. And even if they do understand something, they'll make mistakes. If the test for intelligence is essentially 'can perform certain tasks with a maximum error rate of x, and can learn to perform new tasks', does 'understanding' really matter? And can you even really test for understanding, aren't you only testing for 'gives answers to questions that signal understanding'?
      - Retric 4y ago
        Objectively its conversational skills are so bad it’s below the level where humans get institutionalized due to severe disabilities. I don’t have specific level beyond that because it’s deficiencies don’t map to human condition. As to a touring test given enough time and freedom in questions you can easily tell it’s a machine so it just fails. That’s the thing, the touring test isn’t can you tell if this is a machine in 7 seconds while talking about baseball it’s can to tell period.
pwinnski 4y ago
You're doing it, too. You're thinking of these AI models in terms of human intelligence. The models are not operating at a lower or higher level along a scale of human intelligence, so they're not genius-like or child-like. They're not operating on the same scale at all. They're text prediction models, and many seem to insist on anthropomorphizing them in a way that causes them to forget that every other second or so.

Retric 4y ago

ChatGPT can say the rules of chess it just doesn’t understand them, thus stupidly rather than ignorance. Further if you watch the video it wasn’t moving the pieces incorrectly it was just creating them from thin air. This wasn’t like an 8 year old learning the game this was like your cat randomly hitting the keyboard.

luckylion 4y ago
> ChatGPT can say the rules of chess it just doesn’t understand them, thus stupidly rather than ignorance. It acts similar to a human that has a button for "recite chess rules" and presses it when you ask them to recite the chess rules. You'd then get a reply with the chess rules without the button-presser getting the same info, so they wouldn't gain any knowledge from it. I'm sure you can find a lot of people who could, if asked, read you the chess rules but even after reading wouldn't have understood them themselves. But are they not generally intelligent? I get a feeling that people compare ML-models to a smart person that concentrates on what you ask them, and LLMs fail in comparison but do so confidently. If you instead compare them to an average person at their daily average focus level, the ML probably looks pretty smart. I have a neighbor who is not very bright. He'll see some news on TV and will tell you about it, only he doesn't understand it and will just repeat words and half-sentences as best he can remember. He doesn't know he doesn't understand (or he does but doesn't care), so he'll confidently state utter nonsense. He's not smart and I wouldn't go to him for advice, but I think he qualifies as "intelligent" in the binary sense.
- Retric 4y ago
  > I have a neighbor who is not very bright. Even a dumb person is vastly smarter than an ant. So when I am saying ChatGPT is dumb I mean compared to having a conversation with a person which seems like the only reasonable scale to use with a chat bot. ChatGPT’s model requires quite a of of processing power and sophistication to form its responses. It just doesn’t comprehend what it’s saying.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Do you compare its conversational skills to a smart person or a dumb person? Because the result of the comparison will be very different, I believe. In other words: on a blind Turing test, if you can't tell apart ChatGPT from a dumb human, is the dumb human not generally intelligent? He also doesn't comprehend what he's saying once you get beyond basic things, and he's still vastly smarter than an ant. I'm sure you've talked to people before who used certain terms but it was obvious to you they didn't actually know what those terms meant. They're able to use them without understanding the concept. Just like ChatGPT, only that it's more likely to sound like ChatGPT understands the concept. What I'm trying to say: humans have a very clear limit to what concepts they can grasp. They can punch above their weight by pretending to understand a concept, but the proof is in the pudding, so unless they're able to apply it to solve problems, they haven't understood it. And even if they do understand something, they'll make mistakes. If the test for intelligence is essentially 'can perform certain tasks with a maximum error rate of x, and can learn to perform new tasks', does 'understanding' really matter? And can you even really test for understanding, aren't you only testing for 'gives answers to questions that signal understanding'?
    - Retric 4y ago
      Objectively its conversational skills are so bad it’s below the level where humans get institutionalized due to severe disabilities. I don’t have specific level beyond that because it’s deficiencies don’t map to human condition. As to a touring test given enough time and freedom in questions you can easily tell it’s a machine so it just fails. That’s the thing, the touring test isn’t can you tell if this is a machine in 7 seconds while talking about baseball it’s can to tell period.

pwinnski 4y ago

You're doing it, too. You're thinking of these AI models in terms of human intelligence. The models are not operating at a lower or higher level along a scale of human intelligence, so they're not genius-like or child-like. They're not operating on the same scale at all. They're text prediction models, and many seem to insist on anthropomorphizing them in a way that causes them to forget that every other second or so.