3 ms·
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 simulati
by 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 agoAsk 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 agoThat philosophy undergrad will know that they're spouting BS.