4 ms·

I don't know. Back in the 80s the goal posts for AI was always a machine that understands. We've not even come close to building that. Instead, for-profit comp

I don't know. Back in the 80s the goal posts for AI was always a machine that understands. We've not even come close to building that. Instead, for-profit companies seem to have let their marketing departments move the goal-posts to the 40-yard line. "We can't build real machine intelligence, so we'll call this AI." For me, I always thought R2D2 or R. Daneel Olivaw were what AI was supposed to be. Not "playing Go is hard, so a computer program that can do that is AI." It's the AI label that has been misapplied. I know, this is where I get the lecture about words meaning different things over time. It's why the technical term for the stuff we've been talking about is Machine Learning systems, not "AI." The "AI" phrase is marketing fluff.

adastra22 4y ago
> I don't know. Back in the 80s the goal posts for AI was always a machine that understands. We've not even come close to building that. For any reasonable definition of understanding, we have. If you wanted to test my understanding of an article after reading it, what would you ask me? Now submit the same articles to ChatGPT and ask the same questions. I'm not sure who would score better.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  No. We haven't. Any reasonable definition of understanding includes knowing what's real and what isn't. We've created software that does a great job of simulating responses. The software is unable to "know" anything, let alone that it's assertion that the current year is 2022 is false. It would be possible to coerce ChatGPT into generating the assertion that 2 + 2 = 5 and it would follow the simulation of the argument that this was so, generating text along the way that seems to brim with confidence. The ability to generate text from statistical models of text is not understanding. That we can fool vision systems with decals is because those vision systems cannot bring a model of the world to bear on the interpretation of the statistical matches coming in through the detectors. We've built Chinese rooms able to supply gibberish and excellent translation with equal aplomb.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Ask ChatGPT to reason out what 2 + 2 is, and it will deliver. Ask a cocky undergraduate philosophy student to BS you about how 2 + 2 = 5, and they will confidently do the same. What’s your point?
    - slowmovintarget 4y ago
      That philosophy undergrad will know that they're spouting BS.

adastra22 4y ago

> I don't know. Back in the 80s the goal posts for AI was always a machine that understands. We've not even come close to building that. For any reasonable definition of understanding, we have. If you wanted to test my understanding of an article after reading it, what would you ask me? Now submit the same articles to ChatGPT and ask the same questions. I'm not sure who would score better.

slowmovintarget 4y ago
No. We haven't. Any reasonable definition of understanding includes knowing what's real and what isn't. We've created software that does a great job of simulating responses. The software is unable to "know" anything, let alone that it's assertion that the current year is 2022 is false. It would be possible to coerce ChatGPT into generating the assertion that 2 + 2 = 5 and it would follow the simulation of the argument that this was so, generating text along the way that seems to brim with confidence. The ability to generate text from statistical models of text is not understanding. That we can fool vision systems with decals is because those vision systems cannot bring a model of the world to bear on the interpretation of the statistical matches coming in through the detectors. We've built Chinese rooms able to supply gibberish and excellent translation with equal aplomb.
- adastra22 4y ago
  Ask ChatGPT to reason out what 2 + 2 is, and it will deliver. Ask a cocky undergraduate philosophy student to BS you about how 2 + 2 = 5, and they will confidently do the same. What’s your point?
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
    That philosophy undergrad will know that they're spouting BS.