4 ms·
He writes a great reply to this in his own comment section: "Michael #3: In a certain sense you’re right. The language models now being adopted by millions of
by FredPret 4y ago
He writes a great reply to this in his own comment section:
"Michael #3: In a certain sense you’re right. The language models now being adopted by millions of programmers don’t write working code; they only seem-to-write-working-code. They’re not, unfortunately, already doing millions of students’ homework for them; they’re only seeming-to-do-the-homework. Even if in a few years they help me and my colleagues do our research, they won’t actually be helping, but only seeming-to-help. They won’t change civilization; they’ll only seem-to-change-it."
[0] https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7094#comment-1947189 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7094#comment-1947189
- mjburgess 4y ago> they’ll only seem-to-change-it Then he & I agree! :)
- raisin_churn 4y agoHe only seems to agree.
- throw_pm23 4y agoYes, Deep Blue didn't "really understand chess", it just seemed to, and also happened to beat Kasparov in the process.
- ChainOfFools 4y agoI think the proper formulation of the argument is whether Deep Blue seemed-to-understand chess better than Kasparov seemed-to-understand chess. "Understanding" will turn out to be simply a compression with optimization toward survival of the compressing algorithm. When "survival" finally resolves into a conflict between different algorithms, the winner will be that compression algorithm which compresses those that cannot compress themselves.
- FredPret 4y agoKasparov only seemed to play chess. Who knows what REALLY goes on in his head. Maybe he daydreams and randomly moves the pieces and he's really extremely lucky. Maybe he's only regurgitating chess moves he saw in a book. /s
- mjburgess 4y agoYes, machines can out-perform humans; that's why we build them. A car with a rock on the peddle will out-run an olympic runner; but it isn't competing in a race. To play, to compete, to do any of these things is to intend. One has to have the relevant mental states to "play" at anything. A computer which scans a move tree and emits moves does not intend to do anything; it's just a car with a rock on the peddle. Of course it "wins", in as much as a river might, or a gust of wind. We are interested in games because we play them; not because we "arrive at a win condition". Winning is only significant because it's play, not because of the board state.
- calf 4y agoFurthermore anyone who studied branch and bound in algorithms class ought to understand that a chess engine wins games but does not understand the game and cannot explain the game. That's partly what Chomsky meant by explainability; the fact that AlphaGo/MuZero can beat humans at chess says nothing about rational intelligence any more than a conventional chess engine can beat humans says anything about its capacities. It says even less because a neural network obscures its own learned algorithm, by design.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y agoWait, why is this important? That Deep Blue beat Kasprov? Why is it important, and for whom? Can you explain the importance of it? Is it important for... chess? science? civilisation? humanity? IBM? Whom? How? Why do we have to care at all, that a machine beat a human in anything? Why was such a big hullabaloo made back then? What is the point of beating humans with machines? And why are people always acting so triumphant about it, as if their home team scored a goal? Whose side are you guys, celebrating the successes of big corporations' AI systems, on, anyway? I mean, I really would like an answer to some of those questions at least because I am really confused by many of the attitudes of commenters in these discussions.
- nebulousthree 4y agoUnderlying most of these attitudes is a fantasy of one day augmenting themselves beyond human abilities.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y agoI don't know, does it? I really would like to hear an answer by the OP for example.
- throw_pm23 4y agoIt was a big deal because it seemed impossible before. People have thought a computer would never be able to play at that level because chess required some special human ability. The fact that it became possible was a major milestone. In some sense, beating the world champion may seem an arbitrary threshold, but it is important both symbolically and practically. That it is seen less impressive after the fact by some people is a different issue. Also it was a big gain for chess itself. Although it is a game that has been studied for hundreds of years, the last decades have revealed new lines of play, openings, endgame theory, etc. inspired by computer chess. It was a big deal in a similar way a machine that can fly was a big deal. I hope this explains my perspective.
- 4y ago
- z3c0 4y agoThanks for posting that here. He doesn't offer a voting system, so I couldn't downvote his statement directly, 1) for being a tremendous strawman. Nobody said it can't still be useful or world-changing, only that it's a superficial presentation of what it means to "understand" something, 2) enhancing human intelligence isn't de facto intelligence. My calculator is not intelligent, but it certainly helped "change the world, students cheat, researchers research, yada yada yada" 3) Try getting it to demonstrate object permanence. It will only "seem-to-fail-epically". There are no "things" underlying the terms it uses, and denotation is the crux of language, not syntactic structure. Chomsky himself long ago demonstrated that nailing syntax does not nail meaning: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago> incompetence of these systems, we can only laugh or cry at their popularity Chomsky himself claimed in the the conclusion of his op-ed that these systems are overhyped and close to worthless.
- imtringued 4y ago"They’re not, unfortunately, already doing millions of students’ homework for them; they’re only seeming-to-do-the-homework." I don't know if you could make a worse argument. Generating text that resembles homework isn't the same as actually doing the homework. Students had to do their homework for the chat bot so that it can be fed into it, which lets the chat bot skip the whole doing part.