4 ms·

If you were given the task "mimic the sound of Japanese as best you can", at first, you would just learn the basic phonology and just try and mimic the general

If you were given the task "mimic the sound of Japanese as best you can", at first, you would just learn the basic phonology and just try and mimic the general sounds of the language. You would get good at that, and eventually you would be perfectly mimicking the pronunciation of Japanese phonemes. At some point, it would become worth your time to actually learn how different sounds are put together, e.g. Japanese can't have an S sound followed by a T sound. After that, you may start to learn how the different syllables interact. And at some point, you would learn how words are put together to form sentences. At a certain point, there really is no difference between "being really good at mimicking the sound of Japanese" and actually knowing it, because in order to mimic it to a high level you will have to actually know it. "Mimic the sound of Japanese" is the equivalent task here to "predict the next token in this text".

Retric 4y ago
Where that argument falls apart is when you’re talking about something that’s still bad a mimicry. ChatGPT still completely fails the touring test it’s not even vaguely close to that threshold. For now it’s slightly better than fake crowd noise you’re hearing in movies, but still frequently just gibberish.
- Kiro 4y ago
  ChatGPT passes the Turing test and is not even the first bot to have done so. No idea why you're so keen on downplaying it but soon there won't be anyone left that you will be able to convince that this is no big deal. You're fighting an uphill battle.
  - Retric 4y ago
    That’s completely false. The Touring test allows unlimited topics, time, etc. There are competitions that use rules heavily favor bots where bots have “won” in the past but they aren’t actually preforming the test. ChatGPT seems amazing at first, but that’s because its flaws are so novel to them. People just aren’t used to looking for them so they can overlook how quickly it completely forgets about previous parts of a conversation etc.
    - Kiro 4y ago
      And when it passes your current interpretation of the Turing test you will find another excuse why it still "completely fails" and is "not even vaguely close". That's called moving the goalposts. Passing the Turing test does not imply general intelligence but saying that what it outputs is "just gibberish" is obviously just another hyperbole from you.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Gibberish is just a shortcut for words without meaning. I don’t have some arbitrary rules for what passes the Turing test, but it’s about the worst case not the best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_Machinery_and_Intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_Machinery_and_Intell...
        Kiro 4y ago
        [edit: You edited your comment but it used to say it fails "the test as described" and that the competitions are invalid since they do not follow the rules. I presume you looked up the actual test afterwards and realized how wild your "completely fails" comments were - and did a 360 and rewrote the comment. Keeping my original response below.] > the test as described I hope you realize that the original Turing test is where you have a man and a woman trying to convince an interrogator that they are of the opposite sex. The test is to replace one with a machine and see if the interrogator would decide the wrong sex as often as when there's an actual human playing. So if we're talking about the actual test, as described, the most basic bots have passed it a long time ago. If we're talking about the standard interpretation (convince the interrogator that the bot is human) it's a derived version that has no intrinsic rules and was not described by Turing.
        Retric 4y ago
        I was just going into excessive detail. My point was limitations stop following the spirit of the original. I don’t specifically object to changing the judge from interrogation to observation of a conversation. But, it should be clear his version doesn’t have all the loopholes the modern interpretation does.
- SamPatt 4y ago
  >For now it’s slightly better than fake crowd noise you’re hearing in movies, but still frequently just gibberish. You've clearly never used ChatGPT to help you build or troubleshoot anything before. Try it before you knock it.
  - Retric 4y ago
    I wasted quite a bit of time trying. Its utility falls off a cliff if it can’t copy something from its existing corpus. That said, it’s got a lot of code to copy from. So I may try again if when I suspect I am reinventing the wheel.

Retric 4y ago

Where that argument falls apart is when you’re talking about something that’s still bad a mimicry. ChatGPT still completely fails the touring test it’s not even vaguely close to that threshold. For now it’s slightly better than fake crowd noise you’re hearing in movies, but still frequently just gibberish.

Kiro 4y ago
ChatGPT passes the Turing test and is not even the first bot to have done so. No idea why you're so keen on downplaying it but soon there won't be anyone left that you will be able to convince that this is no big deal. You're fighting an uphill battle.
- Retric 4y ago
  That’s completely false. The Touring test allows unlimited topics, time, etc. There are competitions that use rules heavily favor bots where bots have “won” in the past but they aren’t actually preforming the test. ChatGPT seems amazing at first, but that’s because its flaws are so novel to them. People just aren’t used to looking for them so they can overlook how quickly it completely forgets about previous parts of a conversation etc.
  - Kiro 4y ago
    And when it passes your current interpretation of the Turing test you will find another excuse why it still "completely fails" and is "not even vaguely close". That's called moving the goalposts. Passing the Turing test does not imply general intelligence but saying that what it outputs is "just gibberish" is obviously just another hyperbole from you.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Gibberish is just a shortcut for words without meaning. I don’t have some arbitrary rules for what passes the Turing test, but it’s about the worst case not the best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_Machinery_and_Intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_Machinery_and_Intell...
      - Kiro 4y ago
        [edit: You edited your comment but it used to say it fails "the test as described" and that the competitions are invalid since they do not follow the rules. I presume you looked up the actual test afterwards and realized how wild your "completely fails" comments were - and did a 360 and rewrote the comment. Keeping my original response below.] > the test as described I hope you realize that the original Turing test is where you have a man and a woman trying to convince an interrogator that they are of the opposite sex. The test is to replace one with a machine and see if the interrogator would decide the wrong sex as often as when there's an actual human playing. So if we're talking about the actual test, as described, the most basic bots have passed it a long time ago. If we're talking about the standard interpretation (convince the interrogator that the bot is human) it's a derived version that has no intrinsic rules and was not described by Turing.
        Retric 4y ago
        I was just going into excessive detail. My point was limitations stop following the spirit of the original. I don’t specifically object to changing the judge from interrogation to observation of a conversation. But, it should be clear his version doesn’t have all the loopholes the modern interpretation does.
SamPatt 4y ago
>For now it’s slightly better than fake crowd noise you’re hearing in movies, but still frequently just gibberish. You've clearly never used ChatGPT to help you build or troubleshoot anything before. Try it before you knock it.
- Retric 4y ago
  I wasted quite a bit of time trying. Its utility falls off a cliff if it can’t copy something from its existing corpus. That said, it’s got a lot of code to copy from. So I may try again if when I suspect I am reinventing the wheel.