4 ms·

Of course it's just statistics, but so are we. Define intelligence. Say you took a human brain and kept it alive in a mad scientist's pickle jar. Let's assume

Of course it's just statistics, but so are we. Define intelligence. Say you took a human brain and kept it alive in a mad scientist's pickle jar. Let's assume the brain's wired up so it can hear and speak, it's got an idiot savant's memory, and someone has just read it the internet. What do you think the most impressive things are that the brain could do, that GPT-4 couldn't ?

mike741 4y ago
We can describe ourselves with statistics, that does not mean we are statistics. This is called the "Fallacy of the Map" where a symbol is falsely equated with the entity it represents. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mistaking_the_map_for_the_territory https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mistaking_the_map_for_the_terr... Statistics is collecting and analyzing numerical data. But what is the numerical data quantifying? It's quantifying a second thing. If everything were "just statistics" then there would be nothing left to take statistics of. This would constitute "infinite regress" or a "turtles all the way down" argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down >What do you think the most impressive things are that the brain could do, that GPT-4 couldn't ? This depends on what we consider "impressive." The human brain can control an entire human body, for one. Even if we take away the body, GPT-4 fails all sorts of basic arithmetic and reasoning problems. Additionally, the human brain is organic, analog, holographic, and reacts to external electromagnetic stimulation.
- HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
  You haven't defined intelligence, nor answered the question. Controlling a body is not relevant to a brain in a jar, nor does it detract from the intelligence of someone like Stephen Hawking. We're talking about intelligence - a capability - so applying labels like organic, analog, etc is irrelevant. The question is what can it DO, not how is it built.
  - mike741 4y ago
    > Controlling a body is not relevant to a brain in a jar, nor does it detract from the intelligence of someone like Stephen Hawking. I never said Steven Hawking wasn't intelligent, I was just pointing out obvious differences between the human brain and GPT-4. GPT-4 is unable to solve basic arithmetic problems without employing a traditional calculator. It also can't accurately summarize long books. It also can't program its own GPT-4. > You haven't defined intelligence > We're talking about intelligence If you want to talk about intelligence so badly, perhaps you should at least attempt to define it for yourself first? I don't like using poorly defined words, which is why the word "intelligence" didn't appear anywhere in my previous comment. > The question is what can it DO Is that your measure of intelligence? If something does less, are they then less intelligent? Because, by that standard, the body is integral to intelligence.
    - HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
      GPT-4 doesn't do great at math, but it can ace the bar exam and do plenty of far more complex things. However, individual skills or knowledge aren't the same as intelligence. You can be intelligent and still not know something until told/shown, or not know how do do something until you've tried and practiced. The whole discussion is about intelligence. I was replying to OP. MY definition of intelligence is degree of ability to apply prior experience to correctly predict future outcomes. However my definition isn't particularly relevant here since you seem to want to side with OP and say that GPT-4 isn't intelligent - so it's YOUR definition of intelligence that would be needed support your position. BTW, I'm not sure why you think GPT-4 couldn't code a Transformer (i.e. a GPT-3/4 type model). Yesterday I was talking to GPT-4 about difference in scaling strategy between GPT-2 and GPT-3 and detailed operation of decoder-only Transformers, and it appears very capable, and it can certainly code. Again, a specific skill like being able to code isn't necessary to be called intelligent, but if that's your litmus test then GPT-4 passes.
      - mike741 4y ago
        > but it can ace the bar exam A traditional static program could ace the bar exam, or even a well-prepared stack of flash cards. We wouldn't say the flash cards are exhibiting intelligence though, only their creators. > The whole discussion is about intelligence. I was replying to OP. OP was replying to Scientific American's article making numerous unfounded claims of "intelligence." So the party you should be asking for a definition is Scientific American. > MY definition of intelligence is degree of ability to apply prior experience to correctly predict future outcomes And what constitutes a "prediction" exactly? If someone fails to catch a baseball, would you say it's still possible they correctly predicted how to catch it? Because, if not, that would mean control over a body is integral to intelligence. If yes, then any object could be claimed intelligent but lacking in bodily function. If something predicts the future without applying prior experience, does that make it more intelligent or less intelligent? > you seem to want to side with OP and say that GPT-4 isn't intelligent - so it's YOUR definition of intelligence that would be needed support your position. You're trying to put words in my mouth, but I will play along. I'll say intelligence is the ability to autonomously create increasingly complete and consistent axiomatic systems. Since GPT-4 is digital, operating according to decisions (axioms) determined solely by external programmers and external data with little to no concern for consistency, I would say it's not intelligent. However, if a similar schema were applied to some sort of analog computer that had the ability to fluctuate or disobey its instructions then there would be more room for debate.
dS0rrow 4y ago
> Of course it's just statistics, but so are we. Where is this coming from?
- HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
  Experience wires our brains by forming/strengthening/weakening synapses based on correlated activity, starting with perception. In other words, our brains are tuned according to the statistics of experience, just as a Transformer's weights are tuned by the statistics of the training set.

mike741 4y ago

We can describe ourselves with statistics, that does not mean we are statistics. This is called the "Fallacy of the Map" where a symbol is falsely equated with the entity it represents. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mistaking_the_map_for_the_territory https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mistaking_the_map_for_the_terr... Statistics is collecting and analyzing numerical data. But what is the numerical data quantifying? It's quantifying a second thing. If everything were "just statistics" then there would be nothing left to take statistics of. This would constitute "infinite regress" or a "turtles all the way down" argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down >What do you think the most impressive things are that the brain could do, that GPT-4 couldn't ? This depends on what we consider "impressive." The human brain can control an entire human body, for one. Even if we take away the body, GPT-4 fails all sorts of basic arithmetic and reasoning problems. Additionally, the human brain is organic, analog, holographic, and reacts to external electromagnetic stimulation.

HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
You haven't defined intelligence, nor answered the question. Controlling a body is not relevant to a brain in a jar, nor does it detract from the intelligence of someone like Stephen Hawking. We're talking about intelligence - a capability - so applying labels like organic, analog, etc is irrelevant. The question is what can it DO, not how is it built.
- mike741 4y ago
  > Controlling a body is not relevant to a brain in a jar, nor does it detract from the intelligence of someone like Stephen Hawking. I never said Steven Hawking wasn't intelligent, I was just pointing out obvious differences between the human brain and GPT-4. GPT-4 is unable to solve basic arithmetic problems without employing a traditional calculator. It also can't accurately summarize long books. It also can't program its own GPT-4. > You haven't defined intelligence > We're talking about intelligence If you want to talk about intelligence so badly, perhaps you should at least attempt to define it for yourself first? I don't like using poorly defined words, which is why the word "intelligence" didn't appear anywhere in my previous comment. > The question is what can it DO Is that your measure of intelligence? If something does less, are they then less intelligent? Because, by that standard, the body is integral to intelligence.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
    GPT-4 doesn't do great at math, but it can ace the bar exam and do plenty of far more complex things. However, individual skills or knowledge aren't the same as intelligence. You can be intelligent and still not know something until told/shown, or not know how do do something until you've tried and practiced. The whole discussion is about intelligence. I was replying to OP. MY definition of intelligence is degree of ability to apply prior experience to correctly predict future outcomes. However my definition isn't particularly relevant here since you seem to want to side with OP and say that GPT-4 isn't intelligent - so it's YOUR definition of intelligence that would be needed support your position. BTW, I'm not sure why you think GPT-4 couldn't code a Transformer (i.e. a GPT-3/4 type model). Yesterday I was talking to GPT-4 about difference in scaling strategy between GPT-2 and GPT-3 and detailed operation of decoder-only Transformers, and it appears very capable, and it can certainly code. Again, a specific skill like being able to code isn't necessary to be called intelligent, but if that's your litmus test then GPT-4 passes.
    - mike741 4y ago
      > but it can ace the bar exam A traditional static program could ace the bar exam, or even a well-prepared stack of flash cards. We wouldn't say the flash cards are exhibiting intelligence though, only their creators. > The whole discussion is about intelligence. I was replying to OP. OP was replying to Scientific American's article making numerous unfounded claims of "intelligence." So the party you should be asking for a definition is Scientific American. > MY definition of intelligence is degree of ability to apply prior experience to correctly predict future outcomes And what constitutes a "prediction" exactly? If someone fails to catch a baseball, would you say it's still possible they correctly predicted how to catch it? Because, if not, that would mean control over a body is integral to intelligence. If yes, then any object could be claimed intelligent but lacking in bodily function. If something predicts the future without applying prior experience, does that make it more intelligent or less intelligent? > you seem to want to side with OP and say that GPT-4 isn't intelligent - so it's YOUR definition of intelligence that would be needed support your position. You're trying to put words in my mouth, but I will play along. I'll say intelligence is the ability to autonomously create increasingly complete and consistent axiomatic systems. Since GPT-4 is digital, operating according to decisions (axioms) determined solely by external programmers and external data with little to no concern for consistency, I would say it's not intelligent. However, if a similar schema were applied to some sort of analog computer that had the ability to fluctuate or disobey its instructions then there would be more room for debate.

dS0rrow 4y ago

> Of course it's just statistics, but so are we. Where is this coming from?

HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
Experience wires our brains by forming/strengthening/weakening synapses based on correlated activity, starting with perception. In other words, our brains are tuned according to the statistics of experience, just as a Transformer's weights are tuned by the statistics of the training set.