5 ms·
Is it really so over the top, though? We have machines that have basically internalized the Internet and can easily pass a Turing test, and yet we still have pe
by textninja 4y ago
Is it really so over the top, though? We have machines that have basically internalized the Internet and can easily pass a Turing test, and yet we still have people trivializing these marvels as mere “parrots”. I believe this is partly a defence mechanism (we humans are inherently hubristic), and if a stubborn attachment to humanity’s “specialness” is the cause, then that certainly mirrors the psychology of Copernicus’s detractors.
In a way, though, the “parrot” moniker is apt. The (long aspirational) Turing Test was originally called the “imitation game”, and what’s better at imitation than a parrot? Apparently, it’s ChatGPT - I never did see a parrot write code.
- bambax 4y agoThere's a contradiction in pretending that "humans are not as smart as they think" and that "AI exists": it should be one or the other. In other words, if machines can convincingly imitate us, does it mean machines are intelligent, or that we're stupid?
- stuckinhell 4y agoIt's gets worse because human intelligence exists on a normal curve. So is the AI smarter than "most" humans, "some" humans, or "a few" humans ? At any level of that, you have a paradigm shift affecting millions to billions of people.
- pokeypokes 4y agoI don't see a contradiction.. Humans can both be intelligent and overestimate that intelligence (by thinking it's special and unobtainable) at the same time.
- pharmakom 4y agoI think it showed us that the Turing test isnt enough