2 ms·
I feel that the article is arguing against somewhat of a strawman. Not the idea 'chatGPT isn't a general AI' but the idea 'general AI is impossible'. I think I
by rocqua 4y ago
I feel that the article is arguing against somewhat of a strawman. Not the idea 'chatGPT isn't a general AI' but the idea 'general AI is impossible'.
I think I see more serious arguments against chatGPT not being general AI, which the article seems to ignore. It almost seems to argue 'general AI isn't impossible, thus chatGPT is general AI because it is impressive'. I agree with that premise, and the article argues it well. But I don't agree with the conclusion. Which is frustrating because I find the limitations that keep chatGPT from being general AI a very interesting topic. We should understand those limitations to overcome them.
- glenstein 4y agoPhilosopher Daniel Dennett has made a career of addressing himself to professional academics who espouse variations of this 'strawman' view, with greater and lesser degrees of sophistication. I do think when stated plainly it does feel so absurd that it's hard to believe it could be anything other than a caricature, but it's a debate that's been raging in academic circles for the better part of 60 or 70 years. I also believe that academic philosophy has provided a safe haven to vulgar anti-scientific concepts such as intelligent design, just for another example. So I don't find it surprising that this view is out there in the wild.