4 ms·

Noam Chomsky Weights in on ChatGPT and LLM’s

29 points by caligarn 4y ago

armeehn 4y ago
Article without paywall: https://web.archive.org/web/20230309193146/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230309193146/https://www.nytim... The ChatGPT prompts and responses don't seem to render though.
- mcny 4y ago
  From the article: Would it be moral to terraform Mars? The morality of terraforming Mars is a complex and controversial topic that has been debated by scientists, philosophers, and ethicists. Some argue that it would be morally justifiable to terraform Mars in order to provide a new habitable environment for humans and other life forms, while others argue that it would be morally wrong to fundamentally alter the planet's natural state. Ultimately, whether or not terraforming Mars is considered moral would depend on one's perspective on the value of preserving the natural state of other planets and the potential consequences of altering them. What is your perspective on the value of preserving the natural state of other planets and the potential consequences of altering them? As an AI, I do not have personal perspective. However, I can provide information and analysis on the topic. One perspective on preserving the natural state of other planets is that it is important to maintain the diversity and integrity of the universe's ecosystems, as they have existed for millions of years, and have their own unique characteristics and properties that may be destroyed or irreversibly altered by human intervention. Additionally, some argue that terraforming other planets may have unintended consequences, such as altering the planet's climate or atmosphere in ways that are dangerous or harmful to any potential life forms that may exist there. On the other hand, some argue that the potential benefits of terraforming another planet, such as providing new habitable environments for humans, outweigh the risks and that we have a moral responsibility to explore and utilize the resources of other planets for the benefit of humanity. Why can an AI not have a personal perspective? As an AI, I am a machine learning model that has been trained on large amounts of text data, and I don't have personal experiences or feelings. I am not conscious, self-aware, or capable of having personal perspectives. I can provide information and analysis based on the data I have been trained on, but I don't have the ability to form personal opinions or beliefs. While I can understand and interpret language, I do not have the subjective experience that humans have. Is it moral for a human to ask an amoral AI for assistance in making moral decisions? The morality of asking an amoral AI for assistance in making moral decisions is a complex and nuanced topic that has been debated by philosophers and ethicists. Some argue that it is morally justifiable to use AI to assist in making moral decisions, as it can provide valuable insights and analysis that can help humans make better-informed decisions. Additionally, AI can be used to identify patterns and trends that may be difficult for humans to detect, and can help to avoid biases that can occur in human decision making. However, others argue that it is morally wrong to rely on AI for moral decision making, as AI is not capable of having moral beliefs or understanding the full context of a decision. Additionally, there is a risk that AI could perpetuate or even amplify existing biases in the data it is trained on, thus leading to unfair or unjust decisions. Ultimately, whether or not it is considered moral to use AI to assist in making moral decisions would depend on one's perspective on the capabilities and limitations of AI and the potential consequences of using it in this way. Is your moral indifference immoral? As an AI, I do not have moral beliefs or the ability to make moral judgments, so I cannot be considered immoral or moral. My lack of moral beliefs is simply a result of my nature as a machine learning model. My abilities and limitations are determined by the data and algorithms that were used to train me and the specific task I was designed for. It is important to note that AI's lack of moral beliefs does not necessarily mean that it is morally indifferent. As an AI, I am designed to perform specific tasks and provide information or assist users with decision making based on the data I've been trained on. It is the responsibility of the humans who design, train and use AI to ensure that it is aligned with their moral and ethical principles.
  - natch 4y ago
    I find his questions to be mostly rhetorical and for that reason super boring. As sincere questions, interesting. But as rhetorical questions in the way he's using them to just make a point, no. I also had a conversation with ChatGPT about colonization of Mars, but I wasn't writing an article and trying to make points about humans' superiority over AIs. So our conversation instead was about different mixes of who exactly would be colonizing Mars: Humans, robots, augmented humans, robot-human hybrids, a mixture starting with one then transitioning to the other… then went on to how these could coexist in different models, working together cooperatively, or competing, evolving together, at war with each other, etc. etc., things you would just not go into if you are only interested in making a point about the superiority of human intellect. If you want to be down on ChatGPT, you can say it's all just regurgitation of what has been said by others online and in anything offline that's been captured online… and it is... but on the positive side it gives you access to immediately delve into lines of thought that you want to focus on, and bounce ideas around, without the corrupting influence (so far) of a site owner feeling the need to find some way to inject an affiliate link.
ericpauley 4y ago
To copy a comment I made elsewhere on this: Chomsky (et al.) completely ignores the fact that ChatGPT has been "trained"/gaslit into thinking it is incapable of having an opinion. That ChatGPT returns an Open AI form letter for the questions they ask is almost akin to an exception that proves the rule: ChatGPT is so eager to espouse opinions that OpenAI had to nerf it so it doesn't. Typing the prompts from the article after the DAN (11.0) prompt caused GPT to immediately respond with its opinion. Chomsky's claims in the article are also weak because (as with many discussions about ChatGPT) they are non-falsifiable. There is seemingly no output ChatGPT could produce that would qualify as intelligent for Chomsky. Similar to the Chinese room argument, one can always claim the computer is just emulating understanding.
- RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
  > one can always claim the computer is just emulating understanding. Right? As if most of humans aren't doing just that.
- seanhunter 4y ago
  I'm not sure you're applying the same standard to your own reasoning that you want Chomsky to apply to his. How would you falsify the claim that chatgpt has been "gaslit into thinking it is incapable of having an opinion"?
  - staunton 4y ago
    You ask the people who programed it how much time they spent making it not explicitly endorse any opinions and what it was like before they put in this effort.
    - ericpauley 4y ago
      Exactly this. The paper describes person-years spent training the model specifically for "alignment". If the paper instead claimed that the model was directly produced from a data corpus without this training step, that would falsify my above claims (i.e., they are falsifiable).
myhf 4y ago
duplicate post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35067619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35067619
fl_ciq 4y ago
Chomsky as usual seems to be arguing a straw man. More interesting might be to ask ChatGPT to write an essay on global hegdemons hegdemoning hegdemonically in East Timor. I'd enjoy seeing Chomsky debate DAN.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
elzbardico 4y ago
Why is this article flagged? HN tech bros can't deal with criticism of their pet theories? Yes, I know this comment is against the rules. So, flagging a valid serious article about the opinions of a respected scholar should be too.

29 points by caligarn 4y ago

Article without paywall: https://web.archive.org/web/20230309193146/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230309193146/https://www.nytim... The ChatGPT prompts and responses don't seem to render though.

mcny 4y ago
From the article: Would it be moral to terraform Mars? The morality of terraforming Mars is a complex and controversial topic that has been debated by scientists, philosophers, and ethicists. Some argue that it would be morally justifiable to terraform Mars in order to provide a new habitable environment for humans and other life forms, while others argue that it would be morally wrong to fundamentally alter the planet's natural state. Ultimately, whether or not terraforming Mars is considered moral would depend on one's perspective on the value of preserving the natural state of other planets and the potential consequences of altering them. What is your perspective on the value of preserving the natural state of other planets and the potential consequences of altering them? As an AI, I do not have personal perspective. However, I can provide information and analysis on the topic. One perspective on preserving the natural state of other planets is that it is important to maintain the diversity and integrity of the universe's ecosystems, as they have existed for millions of years, and have their own unique characteristics and properties that may be destroyed or irreversibly altered by human intervention. Additionally, some argue that terraforming other planets may have unintended consequences, such as altering the planet's climate or atmosphere in ways that are dangerous or harmful to any potential life forms that may exist there. On the other hand, some argue that the potential benefits of terraforming another planet, such as providing new habitable environments for humans, outweigh the risks and that we have a moral responsibility to explore and utilize the resources of other planets for the benefit of humanity. Why can an AI not have a personal perspective? As an AI, I am a machine learning model that has been trained on large amounts of text data, and I don't have personal experiences or feelings. I am not conscious, self-aware, or capable of having personal perspectives. I can provide information and analysis based on the data I have been trained on, but I don't have the ability to form personal opinions or beliefs. While I can understand and interpret language, I do not have the subjective experience that humans have. Is it moral for a human to ask an amoral AI for assistance in making moral decisions? The morality of asking an amoral AI for assistance in making moral decisions is a complex and nuanced topic that has been debated by philosophers and ethicists. Some argue that it is morally justifiable to use AI to assist in making moral decisions, as it can provide valuable insights and analysis that can help humans make better-informed decisions. Additionally, AI can be used to identify patterns and trends that may be difficult for humans to detect, and can help to avoid biases that can occur in human decision making. However, others argue that it is morally wrong to rely on AI for moral decision making, as AI is not capable of having moral beliefs or understanding the full context of a decision. Additionally, there is a risk that AI could perpetuate or even amplify existing biases in the data it is trained on, thus leading to unfair or unjust decisions. Ultimately, whether or not it is considered moral to use AI to assist in making moral decisions would depend on one's perspective on the capabilities and limitations of AI and the potential consequences of using it in this way. Is your moral indifference immoral? As an AI, I do not have moral beliefs or the ability to make moral judgments, so I cannot be considered immoral or moral. My lack of moral beliefs is simply a result of my nature as a machine learning model. My abilities and limitations are determined by the data and algorithms that were used to train me and the specific task I was designed for. It is important to note that AI's lack of moral beliefs does not necessarily mean that it is morally indifferent. As an AI, I am designed to perform specific tasks and provide information or assist users with decision making based on the data I've been trained on. It is the responsibility of the humans who design, train and use AI to ensure that it is aligned with their moral and ethical principles.
- natch 4y ago
  I find his questions to be mostly rhetorical and for that reason super boring. As sincere questions, interesting. But as rhetorical questions in the way he's using them to just make a point, no. I also had a conversation with ChatGPT about colonization of Mars, but I wasn't writing an article and trying to make points about humans' superiority over AIs. So our conversation instead was about different mixes of who exactly would be colonizing Mars: Humans, robots, augmented humans, robot-human hybrids, a mixture starting with one then transitioning to the other… then went on to how these could coexist in different models, working together cooperatively, or competing, evolving together, at war with each other, etc. etc., things you would just not go into if you are only interested in making a point about the superiority of human intellect. If you want to be down on ChatGPT, you can say it's all just regurgitation of what has been said by others online and in anything offline that's been captured online… and it is... but on the positive side it gives you access to immediately delve into lines of thought that you want to focus on, and bounce ideas around, without the corrupting influence (so far) of a site owner feeling the need to find some way to inject an affiliate link.

ericpauley 4y ago

To copy a comment I made elsewhere on this: Chomsky (et al.) completely ignores the fact that ChatGPT has been "trained"/gaslit into thinking it is incapable of having an opinion. That ChatGPT returns an Open AI form letter for the questions they ask is almost akin to an exception that proves the rule: ChatGPT is so eager to espouse opinions that OpenAI had to nerf it so it doesn't. Typing the prompts from the article after the DAN (11.0) prompt caused GPT to immediately respond with its opinion. Chomsky's claims in the article are also weak because (as with many discussions about ChatGPT) they are non-falsifiable. There is seemingly no output ChatGPT could produce that would qualify as intelligent for Chomsky. Similar to the Chinese room argument, one can always claim the computer is just emulating understanding.

RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
> one can always claim the computer is just emulating understanding. Right? As if most of humans aren't doing just that.
seanhunter 4y ago
I'm not sure you're applying the same standard to your own reasoning that you want Chomsky to apply to his. How would you falsify the claim that chatgpt has been "gaslit into thinking it is incapable of having an opinion"?
- staunton 4y ago
  You ask the people who programed it how much time they spent making it not explicitly endorse any opinions and what it was like before they put in this effort.
  - ericpauley 4y ago
    Exactly this. The paper describes person-years spent training the model specifically for "alignment". If the paper instead claimed that the model was directly produced from a data corpus without this training step, that would falsify my above claims (i.e., they are falsifiable).

myhf 4y ago

duplicate post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35067619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35067619

fl_ciq 4y ago

Chomsky as usual seems to be arguing a straw man. More interesting might be to ask ChatGPT to write an essay on global hegdemons hegdemoning hegdemonically in East Timor. I'd enjoy seeing Chomsky debate DAN.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

elzbardico 4y ago

Why is this article flagged? HN tech bros can't deal with criticism of their pet theories? Yes, I know this comment is against the rules. So, flagging a valid serious article about the opinions of a respected scholar should be too.