4 ms·

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 A

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.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  >Downplaying a specific interpretation of the technology, and raising alarms over masses building shrines. This is just you being biased. Read the last sentence of my first post. I said "We simply don't know." How does that in any way translate to "building shrines?" It's just your bias talking. I make a claim that we don't fully understand what's going on here, and you turn it around and call that AI worship? Come on man. >Which is interesting and exciting but still not Intelligence, and furthermore drowned in wishful attitude. You do not have the knowledge or intelligence to say that chatGPT is not intelligence. No one does. Pun intended.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > you turn it around No, you misunderstood. I wrote that what you call downplaying is actually «raising alarms over masses building shrines», and I did not mean /you/ specifically. I wrote «masses». > to say that chatGPT is not intelligence If it is there, it is not substantially expressed. If there are minority workings, they remain drowned. The final effect is that of definite unintelligence. The point of intelligence is to base statements on an investigative refined ontology: if it is there somewhere, it is in some technical bits which are not emergent. > You do not have ... to say First of all, on the personal level: mh. On the substance: you can take the term "intelligence" to make it mean whatever suits some wish to call anything intelligent, but it remains finally operationally irrelevant. ... And all of these three points converge again in the substance, because only yesterday a "message to the world" from a leading figure came out spreading word to the peoples that "do not fear the epochal switch in which these new latest technologies will aid your decision": that is emergent deliriousness - no, we do not base decisions on the output of lunatics - and must be regarded as a terrifying undercurrent of widespread madness. "«Raising alarms»". We have been studying Decision Support Systems since forever, and they have requirements.
    - versteegen 4y ago
      > The point of intelligence is to base statements on an investigative refined ontology This is a very narrow conception of intelligence as kilgnad pointed out, but nevermind that. The most interesting word you used is "investigative". The most surprising thing about LLMs -- surprising nearly all researchers -- is that merely reading the internet (observation) is enough to build a model of the world. Many people thought that investigation/experimentation by an embodied agent was necessary to do so. I now think that experimentation is much more efficient, but enough observation can be sufficient. For example imagine you look over someone's shoulder while they spend years going through school learning mathematics. Difficult but not impossible to learn from their exercises and mistakes. On the other hand the world model contained in LLMs is still very deficient in many basic things such as understanding consequences of simple physical interactions, which aren't captured by online texts.
      - 4y ago

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.

kilgnad 4y ago
>Downplaying a specific interpretation of the technology, and raising alarms over masses building shrines. This is just you being biased. Read the last sentence of my first post. I said "We simply don't know." How does that in any way translate to "building shrines?" It's just your bias talking. I make a claim that we don't fully understand what's going on here, and you turn it around and call that AI worship? Come on man. >Which is interesting and exciting but still not Intelligence, and furthermore drowned in wishful attitude. You do not have the knowledge or intelligence to say that chatGPT is not intelligence. No one does. Pun intended.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > you turn it around No, you misunderstood. I wrote that what you call downplaying is actually «raising alarms over masses building shrines», and I did not mean /you/ specifically. I wrote «masses». > to say that chatGPT is not intelligence If it is there, it is not substantially expressed. If there are minority workings, they remain drowned. The final effect is that of definite unintelligence. The point of intelligence is to base statements on an investigative refined ontology: if it is there somewhere, it is in some technical bits which are not emergent. > You do not have ... to say First of all, on the personal level: mh. On the substance: you can take the term "intelligence" to make it mean whatever suits some wish to call anything intelligent, but it remains finally operationally irrelevant. ... And all of these three points converge again in the substance, because only yesterday a "message to the world" from a leading figure came out spreading word to the peoples that "do not fear the epochal switch in which these new latest technologies will aid your decision": that is emergent deliriousness - no, we do not base decisions on the output of lunatics - and must be regarded as a terrifying undercurrent of widespread madness. "«Raising alarms»". We have been studying Decision Support Systems since forever, and they have requirements.
  - versteegen 4y ago
    > The point of intelligence is to base statements on an investigative refined ontology This is a very narrow conception of intelligence as kilgnad pointed out, but nevermind that. The most interesting word you used is "investigative". The most surprising thing about LLMs -- surprising nearly all researchers -- is that merely reading the internet (observation) is enough to build a model of the world. Many people thought that investigation/experimentation by an embodied agent was necessary to do so. I now think that experimentation is much more efficient, but enough observation can be sufficient. For example imagine you look over someone's shoulder while they spend years going through school learning mathematics. Difficult but not impossible to learn from their exercises and mistakes. On the other hand the world model contained in LLMs is still very deficient in many basic things such as understanding consequences of simple physical interactions, which aren't captured by online texts.
    - 4y ago