4 ms·
>Is there any reason to think they are doing actual introspection and description of internal state? Or are they just going to give plausible-sounding words? S
by vba616 3y ago
>Is there any reason to think they are doing actual introspection and description of internal state? Or are they just going to give plausible-sounding words?
Someone needs to call out the double standard applied to AI.
If machines that bullshit are philosophically indistinguishable from intelligent humans, how is it that humans that bullshit are distinguishable from intelligent humans?
- wpietri 3y agoSorry, I'm not following your point.
- pulvinar 3y agoFrom GTP-4 (or maybe this is bullshitting too?): I believe vba616 is trying to point out that if we consider AI systems that generate plausible-sounding responses to be "bullshitting," then we should also acknowledge that humans who do the same are not necessarily distinguishable from "intelligent" humans. In other words, both AI systems and humans can produce seemingly coherent responses without necessarily having a deep understanding of the subject matter. It raises the question of whether we should hold AI systems to the same standard as humans when it comes to evaluating their output or understanding. If we accept that humans can sometimes provide plausible yet shallow answers, should we not also accept that AI systems, like LLMs, can do the same?
- wpietri 3y agoSorry, I do not give LLM-generated copy-pastes any attention. If you personally have something to say here, I'll read it with interest. But I have no interest in automated bullshit.
- nullsense 3y agoAs an AI language model, I fully agree.
- pulvinar 3y agoThat's fine, but you will be continuing to prove the double standard.
- wpietri 3y agoWhat double standard do you have in mind?
- bheadmaster 3y agoThat human bullshitters are treated more kindly than AI bullshitters just because of their human race. That's racist!
- wpietri 3y agoI'm just going to hope this is comedy.
- bheadmaster 3y agoJust wait a dozen years, it won't be.
- usrbinbash 3y agoWhat matters is how correct a statement is, not how its representation in writing was produced.
- stavros 3y agoAh, but what he had to say was the same as what GPT-4 had to say, which proves his point.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- usrbinbash 3y agoThank you for this, it's a very valid point to make. We get served bullshit and fiction-presented-as-fact every day from humans. To make matters worse, alot of these lies are not even the result of an error. A lot of them are deliberate, to further some sort of agenda. Yes, AI can fantasize about facts. Yes AI isn't perfect. But at least, when it does spew misinformation, it is virtually always the result of an error. When an AI lies, it's because of errors, not to sell us something, or get our vote, or talk itself out of something.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- randmeerkat 3y ago> Someone needs to call out the double standard applied to AI. > If machines that bullshit are philosophically indistinguishable from intelligent humans, how is it that humans that bullshit are distinguishable from intelligent humans? Finally someone gets it. A brand new state of the art AI was trained on the entire digital corpus of human knowledge. Said AI then sometimes bullshits people, and people are surprised..?
- Scarblac 3y agoIt depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to make human-like AI, then that's a valid criticism. But if we want AI to be a useful tool, then bullshit isn't helpful. Why hold AIs to the same standards as humans. We already have humans, and can't really change them. Let's apply standards to AIs that make them useful tools.