4 ms·

It's all moot until we can agree on a definition of intelligence. I don't necessarily think it's relevant to the discussion whether an AI is truly intelligent o

It's all moot until we can agree on a definition of intelligence. I don't necessarily think it's relevant to the discussion whether an AI is truly intelligent or not. What matters is whether the technology is good enough to fool an "intelligent" human. It's good enough to do that today. I'd say we would have to train a "dumber" model that can respond with a simple "im not sure" instead of the typical responses we get today would make it even more believable, not less. It's obvious it's an AI because it's too smart. It's too intelligent. Dumb it down, remove the AI branding, and it would fool the majority of the world.

marcusverus 3y ago
> It's all moot until we can agree on a definition of intelligence. We did agree on a definition intelligence! For 50 years, the Turing test was the unquestioned threshold beyond which machines would be considered "intelligent". The simple fact of the matter is that we've reached that point, but folks remain unimpressed, and so have set about moving the goalposts. I am of the opinion that, when the dust settles, the point in time which will be selected as "the moment we achieved Artificial Intelligence", or even rudimentary AGI, will not be in the future, but in the past. This will be true because, once we take a step back, we'll remember that our definition of intelligence should not be so strict that it it excludes a significant percentage of the human population. Consider this--is there any reasonable definition of intelligence which excludes Chat GPT 4.0, but which includes all human beings who fall in the bottom ~5% of IQ?
- Kbelicius 3y ago
  > We did agree on a definition intelligence! For 50 years, the Turing test was the unquestioned threshold beyond which machines would be considered "intelligent". First of all it is now more then 70 years. Secondly the question of the paper isn't whether a computer is intelligent but whether a computer can win the imitation game, so naturally it doesn't contain any definition of intelligence within it.
  - marcusverus 3y ago
    > Secondly the question of the paper isn't whether a computer is intelligent but whether a computer can win the imitation game, so naturally it doesn't contain any definition of intelligence within it. The game IS Turing's definition of intelligence! From the paper: > I PROPOSE to consider the question, ‘Can machines think?’ This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms ‘machine’ and ‘think’. The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous. If the meaning of the words ‘machine’ and ‘think’ are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, ‘Can machines think?’ is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words. The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game...

marcusverus 3y ago

> It's all moot until we can agree on a definition of intelligence. We did agree on a definition intelligence! For 50 years, the Turing test was the unquestioned threshold beyond which machines would be considered "intelligent". The simple fact of the matter is that we've reached that point, but folks remain unimpressed, and so have set about moving the goalposts. I am of the opinion that, when the dust settles, the point in time which will be selected as "the moment we achieved Artificial Intelligence", or even rudimentary AGI, will not be in the future, but in the past. This will be true because, once we take a step back, we'll remember that our definition of intelligence should not be so strict that it it excludes a significant percentage of the human population. Consider this--is there any reasonable definition of intelligence which excludes Chat GPT 4.0, but which includes all human beings who fall in the bottom ~5% of IQ?

Kbelicius 3y ago
> We did agree on a definition intelligence! For 50 years, the Turing test was the unquestioned threshold beyond which machines would be considered "intelligent". First of all it is now more then 70 years. Secondly the question of the paper isn't whether a computer is intelligent but whether a computer can win the imitation game, so naturally it doesn't contain any definition of intelligence within it.
- marcusverus 3y ago
  > Secondly the question of the paper isn't whether a computer is intelligent but whether a computer can win the imitation game, so naturally it doesn't contain any definition of intelligence within it. The game IS Turing's definition of intelligence! From the paper: > I PROPOSE to consider the question, ‘Can machines think?’ This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms ‘machine’ and ‘think’. The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous. If the meaning of the words ‘machine’ and ‘think’ are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, ‘Can machines think?’ is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words. The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game...