4 ms·

I agree about the utility part. However, I don't really accept the idea that this isn't reasoning, but I'm not entirely sold either way. I'd say if it mimics

I agree about the utility part. However, I don't really accept the idea that this isn't reasoning, but I'm not entirely sold either way. I'd say if it mimics something well enough then eventually it's just doing the thing, which is the same side of the argument I fall on with Searle's Chinese Room Argument. If you can't discern a difference, is there a difference? So far GPT-4 can produce better work than like 50% of humans and better responses to brain teaser questions than most of them too, I'm at least just in a bubble and so I don't run into people that stupid that often. So it's easier for me to see the gaps still.

usrbinbash 4y ago
> I'd say if it mimics something well enough then eventually it's just doing the thing Right up to the point where it actually needs to reason, and the mimickry doesn't suffice. My above example about the Football and the Coffemug is an easy one, the objects are well represented in its training data. What if I need a reason why the Service Ping spikes every 60 seconds, here is the code, please LLM look it up. I am sure I will get a great and well written answer. I am also sure it won't be the correct one, which is that some dumb script I wrote, which has nothing to do with the code shown, blocks the server for about 700ms every minute. Figuring out that something cannot be explained with the data represented, and thus may come from a source unseen, is one example of actual reasoning. And this "giving up on the data shown" is something I have yet to see any AI do.
- ianbutler 4y ago
  I could say the same about most second rate software engineers. Thats why im not moved by your arguments. Theres plenty of peope just as stupid and who will give you confidently wrong answers.