4 ms·

There is no meaningful difference between "fake" thinking and "real" thinking. Especially when you arrive at this imaginary distinction with "It's fake because

There is no meaningful difference between "fake" thinking and "real" thinking. Especially when you arrive at this imaginary distinction with "It's fake because it has to be fake"

yladiz 4y ago
But how would you define fake and real thinking? One done by a human and a machine?
- famouswaffles 4y ago
  Shouldn't I be asking you that ? You're the one who thinks such a distinction exists no ? If thinking/understanding/reasoning/whatever can be fake, it should be testable. It should be a conclusion that can be reached from results not baseless speculation. I mean, what kind of huge difference can't be tested for ? If you tell me "this is fake gold" then there are numerous ways to distinguish fake gold from it's real counterpart, mostly by testing its physical properties. If the results and properties from "fake" [insert] and "real" [insert] can't be distinguished then well you've just made up a distinction that doesn't meaningfully exist.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > If thinking/understanding/reasoning/whatever can be fake, it should be testable I agree with everything else you said, but this is a point I disagree with. Just because something isn't testable, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Theoretically, the state of facts could be such that 1) human minds can think (as in, have consciousness and perform the process that is known to us as "human thinking") and 2) machines cannot think (as in, they don't have consciousness, but are literally just mechanisms that appear to provide same output as humans for a certain set of inputs). I don't think it's true, in fact, I don't think consciousness itself is anything more than a convenient illusion, but I still must point out that "what is real must be measurable" is not a valid argument. A more precise formulation might be "if thinking can be fake, the only way we can prove it is if it's testable - otherwise it doesn't make sense to discuss it".
    - famouswaffles 4y ago
      Guess we'll just disagree. If it's not distinguishable then there's no difference period. Of course that won't stop people from making up differences. An argument stemming from "well humans could have this special sauce that machines can't have...just because", is not something to take seriously.
      - tosh 4y ago
        If something is indistinguishable to something else it practically means the two things are substitable (?). It does not mean they are (or work) the same way.
        yladiz 4y ago
        Yeah, so then it depends on what determines if the first is indistinguishable from the second. Is this a Blade Runner situation, or something different?
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        > If it's not distinguishable then there's no difference period. That's true only if you believe that the world only exists inside humans' minds. If you believe in objective reality, then things that are different but not distinguishable by humans can exist.
- machina_ex_deus 4y ago
  I've definitely seen countless humans faking thinking or just not thinking at all.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
yarg 4y ago
There's a problem: an adequate mockery of sapience will be externally indistinguishable from genuine intelligence; it's the inaccessible internal world of the thinking thing that is its distinguishing characteristic. In other words, beyond a certain point it's impossible to tell. At the same time, it's just as impossible for me to know that another human is sentient, even if we meet face to face. (So it's pretty much a moot point.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  Seems like solipsism is reality.
d0mine 4y ago
Here's the difference between fake and real: ask GPT-4: «how many "e" in the word "minimal"?»

There is no meaningful difference between "fake" thinking and "real" thinking. Especially when you arrive at this imaginary distinction with "It's fake because it has to be fake"

yladiz 4y ago

But how would you define fake and real thinking? One done by a human and a machine?

famouswaffles 4y ago
Shouldn't I be asking you that ? You're the one who thinks such a distinction exists no ? If thinking/understanding/reasoning/whatever can be fake, it should be testable. It should be a conclusion that can be reached from results not baseless speculation. I mean, what kind of huge difference can't be tested for ? If you tell me "this is fake gold" then there are numerous ways to distinguish fake gold from it's real counterpart, mostly by testing its physical properties. If the results and properties from "fake" [insert] and "real" [insert] can't be distinguished then well you've just made up a distinction that doesn't meaningfully exist.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > If thinking/understanding/reasoning/whatever can be fake, it should be testable I agree with everything else you said, but this is a point I disagree with. Just because something isn't testable, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Theoretically, the state of facts could be such that 1) human minds can think (as in, have consciousness and perform the process that is known to us as "human thinking") and 2) machines cannot think (as in, they don't have consciousness, but are literally just mechanisms that appear to provide same output as humans for a certain set of inputs). I don't think it's true, in fact, I don't think consciousness itself is anything more than a convenient illusion, but I still must point out that "what is real must be measurable" is not a valid argument. A more precise formulation might be "if thinking can be fake, the only way we can prove it is if it's testable - otherwise it doesn't make sense to discuss it".
  - famouswaffles 4y ago
    Guess we'll just disagree. If it's not distinguishable then there's no difference period. Of course that won't stop people from making up differences. An argument stemming from "well humans could have this special sauce that machines can't have...just because", is not something to take seriously.
    - tosh 4y ago
      If something is indistinguishable to something else it practically means the two things are substitable (?). It does not mean they are (or work) the same way.
      - yladiz 4y ago
        Yeah, so then it depends on what determines if the first is indistinguishable from the second. Is this a Blade Runner situation, or something different?
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      > If it's not distinguishable then there's no difference period. That's true only if you believe that the world only exists inside humans' minds. If you believe in objective reality, then things that are different but not distinguishable by humans can exist.
machina_ex_deus 4y ago
I've definitely seen countless humans faking thinking or just not thinking at all.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

yarg 4y ago

There's a problem: an adequate mockery of sapience will be externally indistinguishable from genuine intelligence; it's the inaccessible internal world of the thinking thing that is its distinguishing characteristic. In other words, beyond a certain point it's impossible to tell. At the same time, it's just as impossible for me to know that another human is sentient, even if we meet face to face. (So it's pretty much a moot point.)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
satvikpendem 4y ago
Seems like solipsism is reality.

d0mine 4y ago

Here's the difference between fake and real: ask GPT-4: «how many "e" in the word "minimal"?»