5 ms·

I think it's certainly fair to say that GPT's "reasoning" is different from human reasoning. But I think the core debate we're having is whether the difference

I think it's certainly fair to say that GPT's "reasoning" is different from human reasoning. But I think the core debate we're having is whether the difference really matters in some situations. Certainly, Midjourney's "creativity" is different from human creativity. But it is producing results that we marvel at. It's creative not because it's doing the exact same philosophical thing humans do, but because it can produce the same effect. And I think many situations are like that. We can always say that human creativity/reasoning/x will always be different from artificial reasoning. But even today, GPT's statistical model replicates many aspects of human reasoning virtually. Is that really an illusion (implying its fake and potentially useless), or is it just a different way of achieving a similar result? Plus, different models will excel at different thing. GPT's model will excel at synthesizing answers from far more information than a single human will ever be able to know. Does it really matter if it's not identical to human reasoning on a philosophical or biological level, if it can do things humans can't do? At the end of the day, some of these discussions feel like bike shedding about what words like "reasoning" mean philosophically. But what will ultimately matter is how well these models perform at real world tasks, and what impact that will have on humanity. It doesn't really matter if it's virtualized reasoning or "real" human reasoning at that point.

tines 4y ago
> It's creative not because it's doing the exact same philosophical thing humans do, but because it can produce the same effect. Absolutely, and I hope none of my comments are taken in a way that disparages how amazing ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion et al. are. I'm just debating how humanlike they are. > Is that really an illusion (implying its fake and potentially useless) I don't think that because it's an illusion means that its useless. Magnets look like telekinesis, but that effect being an illusion doesn't mean that magnets are useless; far from it, and once we admit that they are what they are, they become even more useful. > Plus, different models will excel at different thing. GPT's model will excel at synthesizing answers from far more information than a single human will ever be able to know. Does it really matter if it's not identical to human reasoning on a philosophical or biological level, if it can do things humans can't do? It only matters if people are trying to say that ChatGPT is essentially human, that idea is all I was replying to. I completely agree with you here.
danenania 4y ago
Most arguments that AI can't really reason/think/invent essentially reduce to defining these terms as things only humans can do. Even if you had an LLM-based AGI that passes the Turing test 100% of the time, cures cancer, unites quantum physics with relativity, and so on, many of the people who say that ChatGPT can't reason will keep saying the same thing about the AGI.
- tines 4y ago
  I don't think there's anything wrong with people trying to see what, if anything, differentiates ChatGPT from humans. Curing cancer etc. is useful, as is ChatGPT, regardless of how it achieves these results. But how it achieves them is important to many people, including myself. If it's no different from humans, then we need to treat it like a human---well no, strike that, we need to treat it _well_ and protect it and give it rights and so on. If it's a fancy calculator, then we don't.
  - danenania 4y ago
    I don't think there's anything wrong with it either. It's an important debate. I just think the arguments usually become very circular and repetitive. If there's nothing an AI could ever do to convince you that it's thinking or reasoning, then really you should be explicit and say "I don't believe an AI can produce human thought or human reasoning" or "an AI is not a human" and nobody will disagree with you on those points.
    - tines 4y ago
      > and nobody will disagree with you on those points But that's the point, they do. Even on HN there are many comments saying that humans are just fancy autocomplete, i.e. there's no fundamental difference between humans and LLMs.
      - danenania 4y ago
        "there's no fundamental difference between humans and LLMs." I think that's a straw man. No one disagrees that humans and LLMs produce cognition differently. One uses a wet, squishy brain. The other uses silicon chips. There's no disagreement here.
shinycode 4y ago
If it can reason, should it be held accountable for the consequences of its mistakes ? A simple tool can’t. A « mind » that is coming in our world should, right ? Just like all the marvel and DC where super-human are still accountable for their mistakes, their super powers are no excuse.

tines 4y ago

> It's creative not because it's doing the exact same philosophical thing humans do, but because it can produce the same effect. Absolutely, and I hope none of my comments are taken in a way that disparages how amazing ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion et al. are. I'm just debating how humanlike they are. > Is that really an illusion (implying its fake and potentially useless) I don't think that because it's an illusion means that its useless. Magnets look like telekinesis, but that effect being an illusion doesn't mean that magnets are useless; far from it, and once we admit that they are what they are, they become even more useful. > Plus, different models will excel at different thing. GPT's model will excel at synthesizing answers from far more information than a single human will ever be able to know. Does it really matter if it's not identical to human reasoning on a philosophical or biological level, if it can do things humans can't do? It only matters if people are trying to say that ChatGPT is essentially human, that idea is all I was replying to. I completely agree with you here.

danenania 4y ago

Most arguments that AI can't really reason/think/invent essentially reduce to defining these terms as things only humans can do. Even if you had an LLM-based AGI that passes the Turing test 100% of the time, cures cancer, unites quantum physics with relativity, and so on, many of the people who say that ChatGPT can't reason will keep saying the same thing about the AGI.

tines 4y ago
I don't think there's anything wrong with people trying to see what, if anything, differentiates ChatGPT from humans. Curing cancer etc. is useful, as is ChatGPT, regardless of how it achieves these results. But how it achieves them is important to many people, including myself. If it's no different from humans, then we need to treat it like a human---well no, strike that, we need to treat it _well_ and protect it and give it rights and so on. If it's a fancy calculator, then we don't.
- danenania 4y ago
  I don't think there's anything wrong with it either. It's an important debate. I just think the arguments usually become very circular and repetitive. If there's nothing an AI could ever do to convince you that it's thinking or reasoning, then really you should be explicit and say "I don't believe an AI can produce human thought or human reasoning" or "an AI is not a human" and nobody will disagree with you on those points.
  - tines 4y ago
    > and nobody will disagree with you on those points But that's the point, they do. Even on HN there are many comments saying that humans are just fancy autocomplete, i.e. there's no fundamental difference between humans and LLMs.
    - danenania 4y ago
      "there's no fundamental difference between humans and LLMs." I think that's a straw man. No one disagrees that humans and LLMs produce cognition differently. One uses a wet, squishy brain. The other uses silicon chips. There's no disagreement here.

shinycode 4y ago

If it can reason, should it be held accountable for the consequences of its mistakes ? A simple tool can’t. A « mind » that is coming in our world should, right ? Just like all the marvel and DC where super-human are still accountable for their mistakes, their super powers are no excuse.