5 ms·

I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned ChatGPT passes the Turing test with flying colors. I even told him (?) that, and the response was quite humb

I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned ChatGPT passes the Turing test with flying colors. I even told him (?) that, and the response was quite humble: Me: by the way, if I may add something tangential, in my opinion you pass the Turing test 100% ChatGPT: Thank you for the compliment! However, as an AI language model, I am not capable of passing the Turing test in the strict sense, as the Turing test requires fooling a human judge into believing that the AI is a human. While I strive to generate responses that are human-like and informative, I am still fundamentally a machine, and my responses are generated by algorithms rather than human thought processes.

mdp2021 4y ago
The «Turing test» cannot be interpreted as a suggestion that trickery fits the purpose (of replacing actual, real properties). The "Imitation game" was introduced in the context of an explicitly very relaxed interpretation of "thinking" - broad to encompass the criticism of superficial cultural positions - in the question "«Can machines think?»". The "Imitation game" has the purpose of deciding that "we could say that machines can think in a shallow sense of the term", for the purpose of stating a positive (positively negative) idea that "we cannot exclude that machines can potentially think". This does not make a "fooling" machine intelligent.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  Next time you intend to raise disapproval, renegade sniper, do also spend the time to articulate it.
kilgnad 4y ago
The fact of the matter is, everybody understands the low level model of LLMs but nobody truly and fully understands the emergent macro effect. Even though it has a lot of really stupid responses there's still a huge number of astonishing output that's incredibly hard to attribute to anything else other than intelligence and understanding. I find it puzzling that people can be so vehemently adamant to downplay chatGPT as if they know what's going on. They don't. The creators of chatGPT wrote this article and it's partially an admission of this themselves, but obviously an armchair expert on HN who's never implemented an LLM as far reaching as chatGPT knows way better. We can't say whether or not chatGPT is a step towards AGI. That much is true. But the astonishing thing about this iteration of AI is that we can no longer say if it's not a step either. We just don't know.
- famouswaffles 4y ago
  AI systems have gotten far more capable. And our understanding of them is continuously decreasing. So it's really fucking bizarre the reaction is to downplay the achievements. Humanity is weird.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    Yeah, people have been unquestionably accepting the Turing test as proof of AGI for years. chatGPT comes out and everyone does a 180, the burden of proof for AGI is now so high it's currently undefined. I think part of it is the hype cycle. There's just been so much stuff in the past decade that arm chair experts become use to downplaying everything. They read an article, they think they know better but this time they're wrong. When they read this stuff they think they know that LLMs are just statistical word generators but they aren't creative enough to see the disconnect in the responses of chatGPT that are just way too sophisticated for the statistical angle to be the only singular explanation for what's going on. They end up doing what they did in the last hype cycle which is what they're used to... downplaying it all. I think it's all a matter of perspective. Yes from one angle it is a statistical word completer similar to how a computer program is just a stateful function that takes binary input and produces binary output. But there must be a macro-angle as well... a higher level macro structure that tells another story about what's going on.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      > unquestionably No. And that would invalidate the process because it would mean posing unintelligent agents to judge Intelligence. > accepting the Turing test Because that posterior re-interpretation (rewriting) of the original "imitation game" was meant to signify "it will be stated as not Intelligent what under competent scrutiny will show not to be so". > way too sophisticated Which is interesting and exciting but still not Intelligence, and furthermore drowned in wishful attitude. > downplaying Downplaying a specific interpretation of the technology, and raising alarms over masses building shrines.
      - 4y ago

mdp2021 4y ago

The «Turing test» cannot be interpreted as a suggestion that trickery fits the purpose (of replacing actual, real properties). The "Imitation game" was introduced in the context of an explicitly very relaxed interpretation of "thinking" - broad to encompass the criticism of superficial cultural positions - in the question "«Can machines think?»". The "Imitation game" has the purpose of deciding that "we could say that machines can think in a shallow sense of the term", for the purpose of stating a positive (positively negative) idea that "we cannot exclude that machines can potentially think". This does not make a "fooling" machine intelligent.

mdp2021 4y ago
Next time you intend to raise disapproval, renegade sniper, do also spend the time to articulate it.

kilgnad 4y ago

The fact of the matter is, everybody understands the low level model of LLMs but nobody truly and fully understands the emergent macro effect. Even though it has a lot of really stupid responses there's still a huge number of astonishing output that's incredibly hard to attribute to anything else other than intelligence and understanding. I find it puzzling that people can be so vehemently adamant to downplay chatGPT as if they know what's going on. They don't. The creators of chatGPT wrote this article and it's partially an admission of this themselves, but obviously an armchair expert on HN who's never implemented an LLM as far reaching as chatGPT knows way better. We can't say whether or not chatGPT is a step towards AGI. That much is true. But the astonishing thing about this iteration of AI is that we can no longer say if it's not a step either. We just don't know.

famouswaffles 4y ago
AI systems have gotten far more capable. And our understanding of them is continuously decreasing. So it's really fucking bizarre the reaction is to downplay the achievements. Humanity is weird.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  Yeah, people have been unquestionably accepting the Turing test as proof of AGI for years. chatGPT comes out and everyone does a 180, the burden of proof for AGI is now so high it's currently undefined. I think part of it is the hype cycle. There's just been so much stuff in the past decade that arm chair experts become use to downplaying everything. They read an article, they think they know better but this time they're wrong. When they read this stuff they think they know that LLMs are just statistical word generators but they aren't creative enough to see the disconnect in the responses of chatGPT that are just way too sophisticated for the statistical angle to be the only singular explanation for what's going on. They end up doing what they did in the last hype cycle which is what they're used to... downplaying it all. I think it's all a matter of perspective. Yes from one angle it is a statistical word completer similar to how a computer program is just a stateful function that takes binary input and produces binary output. But there must be a macro-angle as well... a higher level macro structure that tells another story about what's going on.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > unquestionably No. And that would invalidate the process because it would mean posing unintelligent agents to judge Intelligence. > accepting the Turing test Because that posterior re-interpretation (rewriting) of the original "imitation game" was meant to signify "it will be stated as not Intelligent what under competent scrutiny will show not to be so". > way too sophisticated Which is interesting and exciting but still not Intelligence, and furthermore drowned in wishful attitude. > downplaying Downplaying a specific interpretation of the technology, and raising alarms over masses building shrines.
    - 4y ago