3 ms·

This is the debate, isn’t it? I think if we create tests for understanding and deliver them to people, we will find variations in what people understand. I thin

This is the debate, isn’t it? I think if we create tests for understanding and deliver them to people, we will find variations in what people understand. I think we will find the same for chatGPT. But I suspect your notion of understanding is not measurable, is it? For you, chatGPT lacks something essential such that it is incapable of understanding, no matter the test. Or do you have a way to measure this without appeal to consciousness or essentialism?

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Well, consciousness is part of the question, isn't it? We know that we are conscious (even if we can't precisely define what that means). Is ChatGPT conscious? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but how do you prove it? Does understanding require consciousness? Maybe yes, for the kind of understanding I'm thinking of, but I'm not certain of that. How do you measure understanding? You step a bit outside the training set, and see if whoever (or whatever) being tested can apply what it has learned in that somewhat novel situation. That's hard when ChatGPT has been trained on the entire internet. But to the degree we can test it, ChatGPT often falls down horribly. (It even falls down on things that should be within its training set.) So we conclude that it doesn't actually understand.
- mnky9800n 4y ago
  Another part of all this is chatgpt was trained on the entire internet and still does a mediocre job when its doing well. That's an amazing amount of resources required to do all that to arrive at it being able to do what it does writing codes or whatever when a person typically requires a couple slices of pizza and general access to the internet which that person has Read almost none of. How come humans are so efficient when these computers are using enormous amounts of energy? When will we have a computer that only requires a few slices of pizza worth of energy to get to the next step?
- loandbehold 4y ago
  Give an example where ChatGPT4 falls down horribly on a novel concept where human would do better?

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

Well, consciousness is part of the question, isn't it? We know that we are conscious (even if we can't precisely define what that means). Is ChatGPT conscious? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but how do you prove it? Does understanding require consciousness? Maybe yes, for the kind of understanding I'm thinking of, but I'm not certain of that. How do you measure understanding? You step a bit outside the training set, and see if whoever (or whatever) being tested can apply what it has learned in that somewhat novel situation. That's hard when ChatGPT has been trained on the entire internet. But to the degree we can test it, ChatGPT often falls down horribly. (It even falls down on things that should be within its training set.) So we conclude that it doesn't actually understand.

mnky9800n 4y ago
Another part of all this is chatgpt was trained on the entire internet and still does a mediocre job when its doing well. That's an amazing amount of resources required to do all that to arrive at it being able to do what it does writing codes or whatever when a person typically requires a couple slices of pizza and general access to the internet which that person has Read almost none of. How come humans are so efficient when these computers are using enormous amounts of energy? When will we have a computer that only requires a few slices of pizza worth of energy to get to the next step?
loandbehold 4y ago
Give an example where ChatGPT4 falls down horribly on a novel concept where human would do better?