5 ms·
It doesn't act conscious enough to fool us though. It doesn't seem remotely conscious even at first blush, and seems less so the more you interact with it. And
by logicprog 3y ago
It doesn't act conscious enough to fool us though. It doesn't seem remotely conscious even at first blush, and seems less so the more you interact with it. And I think the stochastic parrot "model" of consciousness is very obviously not a good model for understanding the processes going on in the human brain, because it leaves out so many aspects: the fact that self-awareness and metacognition are a key component of consciousness, the fact that humans are trained as they grow up by experimenting with an environment that rewards understanding consistent principles and concepts, instead of just being rewarded for stringing together vaguely convincing-sounding sentences, among others. Like, just because it can create something vaguely superficially similar doesn't mean it's a good model for understanding consciousness at all. That's not how this works.
- jart 3y agoAre you saying the Turing test wasn't passed? If you think you understand machine learning well enough to dismiss it as a science because you know a buzzword from a feminist critique that also came out of Google Brain, then I'd say their inclusivity initiative certainly did its job. The reason it passes the Turing test is because the rest of us can't tell it apart from people like you.
- logicprog 3y ago[flagged]
- logicprog 3y agoTLDR: just because one person or even a group of them are gullible enough to be fooled by something doesn't mean that that thing is actually indistinguishable enough from consciousness to count as conscious for all intents and purposes, which is the idea behind the Turing Test. Humans tend to anthropomorphize, be trusting and gullible, and the Turing test is a short, limited scenario, with no real larger context in play. To actually figure out if something was indistinguishable enough from a conscious being to count as conscious, you'd have to have a lot of very in depth interacts with it over a long period of time, to really get a sense for how it thinks and operates. And just because something superficially looks conscious doesn't mean it will actually be able to do all the things conscious beings can — i.e., that it will actually be conscious. Nor does it mean that the processes going on under the hood will be the same as what goes on for conscious beings. Nor should bringing up philosophy of mind make you think I'm an LLM, and if it does, that probably means that you can't tell the difference between bullshit and abstraction, which says more about your intelligence than mine.
- jart 3y ago[flagged]
- logicprog 3y ago[flagged]
- logicprog 3y agoI have to ask, are you seriously claiming that stuff like ChatGPT appears conscious to you? Do you really think we've created consciousness?
- logicprog 3y ago[flagged]