2 ms·

The sole aspect of this denial is that I work in ML and know for a fact that ChatGPT's "humanness" is - at best - superficial. It's mimicking the text created b

by z3c0 4y ago

The sole aspect of this denial is that I work in ML and know for a fact that ChatGPT's "humanness" is - at best - superficial. It's mimicking the text created by humans, not formulating the core ideas in a soupy model of reality and then applying terms through denotation. And when I say mimicking, I don't mean "regurgitating its training data". It's not parroting what was said, but it IS parroting the order in which things are said, using an RNG to add a little variance. That's all. Unlike ChatGPT, or any ML model, humans are still human in the total absence of language* stimuli. Maybe animalistic, even vegetative, but still "intelligent" enough to maintain bodily functions. No training required, thus no upper or lower bounds that one knows will constrain the final output. That is because the way to "make" a brain is predefined in our instructions, DNA. A trained model has no "functional default" the way actual intelligence does. It's a very advanced information photocopier that can probalistically arrange an apparently "fresh" (but fundamentally NOT) output based on toggled bits. At best, ChatGPT will be a semantic layer for an actually intelligent AI capable of truly original output, which will allow that "denotative" layer that you and I use to communicate. A good read on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Denoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Denoting The full paper: https://www.philosophy-index.com/russell/on-denoting/Russell_-_On_Denoting.pdf https://www.philosophy-index.com/russell/on-denoting/Russell... edit: missed a rather important word that changed the whole meaning of the sentence.

rstuart4133 4y ago
> No training required, thus no upper or lower bounds that one knows will constrain the final output. This is were we depart. Humans get lots of training. Around 20 years of it before the are classed as adults. Even in adulthood we continue seek it out, pretty much continuously. I'm doing that here, by reading HN and seeking feedback. There are also lots of self evident bounds. We must eat stuff that is food, and not dirt. We must breath air, and not water. We must look after our children. We must work. We must say stuff that makes sense to fellow humans. I'm sort of gob smacked that you could even think human intelligence operates without bounds. > A trained model has no "functional default" the way actual intelligence does. Sorry, I have no idea what that means. > truly original output This left me scratching my head. How do define "truly original output"? I don't think there is a definition as we can't even agree on when humans are producing "original output" give the arguments we have over movie plots. > an intelligent AI Again, I have no idea what you mean by this. That isn't surprising to me as there isn't a agreed definition of intelligence or how to measure it. Given that I don't know how you or I could be sure an any given AI was as intelligent as a human - and that includes ChatGPT. To me, where this all leads is people use the work "intelligent" as a proxy for the way they imagine humans might think. That's a bit sad, as we have no idea how humans think - so I don't know how you could compare it to the way an AI thinks. Even so, it looks self evident that at a detailed level ChatGPT does not think like us. If that's your definition of intelligence, as AI will never achieve it. But "think the same way we do" is not end goal, is it? The end goal is "produce original output, but indistinguishable from what a human might produce", which ChatGDP already does in it's domain. By the by, while at the detailed level ChatGPT and humans are obviously very different, I'd be surprised if there aren't profound similarities as well. For example I would not be at all surprised if "originality" in ChatGPT and humans boiled down to randomness being injected into a neural net, which then moulded it into something that matches all the constraints prior learning had taught it. So we get something that is novel - but still consistent with how everybody perceives the real world to be.
- z3c0 4y ago
  To A and B: human babies exit the womb with pre-baked intelligent reflexes. These are so distinct and ubiquitous, they are used to test the health of newborns (eg rooting for a nipple, closing into a fist, etc.) Models are static. You read in the training set, you write out the weights. No functional default to build upon. To C: to create truly original output would be to ponder something into existence that wasn't presented to you prior. To reach nonsensical conclusions through valid logic [much how children create made-up words (eg "goed" instead of "went") based on the underpinning concepts of language, not regurgitating what was fed to them.] ChatGPT pretends to do this with an RNG. Humans do this through denotation. When ChatGPT accidentally makes up a word, I'll hop on this hype train. And to D: I never presumed to know what AGI will finally look like; only that this isn't going to be what gets us there. If one is going to posit that ChatGPT is a significant step in that direction, the burden of proof is on them, not me. You told me that Russell's teapot is orbiting the sun, and I told you that I don't think it is. Simple as that. Edit: by the way, your idea of intelligence isn't much more than the Turing Test, which we know missed the mark due to a chatbot beating it over a decade ago now. We've realized for a while now that it's much easier to feign intelligence than recreate it.

by z3c0 4y ago

rstuart4133 4y ago

> No training required, thus no upper or lower bounds that one knows will constrain the final output. This is were we depart. Humans get lots of training. Around 20 years of it before the are classed as adults. Even in adulthood we continue seek it out, pretty much continuously. I'm doing that here, by reading HN and seeking feedback. There are also lots of self evident bounds. We must eat stuff that is food, and not dirt. We must breath air, and not water. We must look after our children. We must work. We must say stuff that makes sense to fellow humans. I'm sort of gob smacked that you could even think human intelligence operates without bounds. > A trained model has no "functional default" the way actual intelligence does. Sorry, I have no idea what that means. > truly original output This left me scratching my head. How do define "truly original output"? I don't think there is a definition as we can't even agree on when humans are producing "original output" give the arguments we have over movie plots. > an intelligent AI Again, I have no idea what you mean by this. That isn't surprising to me as there isn't a agreed definition of intelligence or how to measure it. Given that I don't know how you or I could be sure an any given AI was as intelligent as a human - and that includes ChatGPT. To me, where this all leads is people use the work "intelligent" as a proxy for the way they imagine humans might think. That's a bit sad, as we have no idea how humans think - so I don't know how you could compare it to the way an AI thinks. Even so, it looks self evident that at a detailed level ChatGPT does not think like us. If that's your definition of intelligence, as AI will never achieve it. But "think the same way we do" is not end goal, is it? The end goal is "produce original output, but indistinguishable from what a human might produce", which ChatGDP already does in it's domain. By the by, while at the detailed level ChatGPT and humans are obviously very different, I'd be surprised if there aren't profound similarities as well. For example I would not be at all surprised if "originality" in ChatGPT and humans boiled down to randomness being injected into a neural net, which then moulded it into something that matches all the constraints prior learning had taught it. So we get something that is novel - but still consistent with how everybody perceives the real world to be.

z3c0 4y ago
To A and B: human babies exit the womb with pre-baked intelligent reflexes. These are so distinct and ubiquitous, they are used to test the health of newborns (eg rooting for a nipple, closing into a fist, etc.) Models are static. You read in the training set, you write out the weights. No functional default to build upon. To C: to create truly original output would be to ponder something into existence that wasn't presented to you prior. To reach nonsensical conclusions through valid logic [much how children create made-up words (eg "goed" instead of "went") based on the underpinning concepts of language, not regurgitating what was fed to them.] ChatGPT pretends to do this with an RNG. Humans do this through denotation. When ChatGPT accidentally makes up a word, I'll hop on this hype train. And to D: I never presumed to know what AGI will finally look like; only that this isn't going to be what gets us there. If one is going to posit that ChatGPT is a significant step in that direction, the burden of proof is on them, not me. You told me that Russell's teapot is orbiting the sun, and I told you that I don't think it is. Simple as that. Edit: by the way, your idea of intelligence isn't much more than the Turing Test, which we know missed the mark due to a chatbot beating it over a decade ago now. We've realized for a while now that it's much easier to feign intelligence than recreate it.