3 ms·

> There is no 'hallucination' as the behavior is anticipated, expected, and entirely within normal operations processes. Exactly. These are models that predict

> There is no 'hallucination' as the behavior is anticipated, expected, and entirely within normal operations processes. Exactly. These are models that predict text sequences. These sequences often semantically express falsehoods, but the model's not "lying", it's not "hallucinating", and it's definitely not malfunctioning. It's doing exactly what it was designed to do. There definitely are "lies" and "hallucinations" here though ... but they're coming from the hype-cycle-hucksters trying to convince us that this whole process somehow resembles "intelligence".

circuit10 3y ago
It clearly has some level of intelligence, though it’s pretty far from human level. The hallucinations don’t make it less intelligent because it’s not “trying” to avoid them, as you seem to know already
- hmcq6 3y ago
  > It clearly has some level of intelligence https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#LargPhilIssu https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#LargPhilIss...
  - circuit10 3y ago
    To me the Chinese Room thought experiment seems like it's meant to show that AIs can be intelligent, not the opposite? "Searle could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output, without understanding any of the content of the Chinese writing." Sure, but that doesn't mean the state of the program doesn't contain any understanding or intelligence, it's just that the human doesn't have a high-level view that can be used to decode that internal state. We're not asking whether the computer chip itself understands things but whether the something contained in the program running on it does. The human could also run a physics simulation as in https://xkcd.com/505/ https://xkcd.com/505/ and recreate a human brain which would be no different to a physical brain in terms of behavior and so there would be no reason not to call it intelligent
    - hmcq6 3y ago
      You're misunderstanding the thought experiment then. By definition the person inside the Chinese Room doesn't understand Chinese. > but that doesn't mean the state of the program doesn't contain any understanding or intelligence Programs don't contain understanding or intelligence, they contain instructions. > We're not asking whether the computer chip itself understands things but whether the something contained in the program running on it does. I feel like your saying "I'm not accusing the blender of being intelligent, I'm saying the recipe for this margarita is self aware." It doesn't matter if its hardware or software, neither is capable of understanding because understanding is a conscious experience and neither a blender nor a recipe are sentient. > The human could also run a physics simulation Cool XKCD but I'm not arguing about wether AI is possible. Just pointing out that convolutional neural networks are not self aware or intelligent or actually learning (at least not yet).
      - circuit10 3y ago
        > “You're misunderstanding the thought experiment then.” So if I don’t agree with it, I’m misunderstanding it? It even says in the Wikipedia article for it: > "The overwhelming majority", notes BBS editor Stevan Harnad, "still think that the Chinese Room Argument is dead wrong". So don’t try to pretend it’s some absolute truth, it’s just a flawed argument > Programs don't contain understanding or intelligence, they contain instructions. Why can intelligence and understanding not come from a sufficiently complex set of instructions? > understanding is a conscious experience and neither a blender nor a recipe are sentient. That’s an odd definition of understanding. By my definition understanding is having information about something and the ability to process it such that you can effectively predict its behaviour and possibly take actions to change its state to fit a goal. I guess you will always win if you redefine all the words to mean what you want. Your definition is useless because it’s unfalsifiable because you can’t measure whether something is “sentient” > Just pointing out that convolutional neural networks are not self aware or intelligent or actually learning Self aware? Probably no Intelligent? To some extent, yes Learning? Of course they are, I don’t see how you can argue that they aren’t
        3y ago
- 12_throw_away 3y ago
  > It clearly has some level of intelligence Absolutely not, this is not remotely "clear", and it's a very strange thing to assert. > The hallucinations don’t make it less intelligent because it’s not “trying” to avoid them, as you seem to know already What? No. What does "as you seem to know already" mean in this context?
  - circuit10 3y ago
    > Absolutely not, this is not remotely "clear", and it's a very strange thing to assert. I guess it depends how you define intelligence but I guess I would say intelligence is the ability to find the best action to take to achieve a certain goal, and AI can do that reasonably well > What does "as you seem to know already" mean in this context? It means that based on the comment I was replying to the person seems to already understand what I just said

circuit10 3y ago

It clearly has some level of intelligence, though it’s pretty far from human level. The hallucinations don’t make it less intelligent because it’s not “trying” to avoid them, as you seem to know already

hmcq6 3y ago
> It clearly has some level of intelligence https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#LargPhilIssu https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#LargPhilIss...
- circuit10 3y ago
  To me the Chinese Room thought experiment seems like it's meant to show that AIs can be intelligent, not the opposite? "Searle could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output, without understanding any of the content of the Chinese writing." Sure, but that doesn't mean the state of the program doesn't contain any understanding or intelligence, it's just that the human doesn't have a high-level view that can be used to decode that internal state. We're not asking whether the computer chip itself understands things but whether the something contained in the program running on it does. The human could also run a physics simulation as in https://xkcd.com/505/ https://xkcd.com/505/ and recreate a human brain which would be no different to a physical brain in terms of behavior and so there would be no reason not to call it intelligent
  - hmcq6 3y ago
    You're misunderstanding the thought experiment then. By definition the person inside the Chinese Room doesn't understand Chinese. > but that doesn't mean the state of the program doesn't contain any understanding or intelligence Programs don't contain understanding or intelligence, they contain instructions. > We're not asking whether the computer chip itself understands things but whether the something contained in the program running on it does. I feel like your saying "I'm not accusing the blender of being intelligent, I'm saying the recipe for this margarita is self aware." It doesn't matter if its hardware or software, neither is capable of understanding because understanding is a conscious experience and neither a blender nor a recipe are sentient. > The human could also run a physics simulation Cool XKCD but I'm not arguing about wether AI is possible. Just pointing out that convolutional neural networks are not self aware or intelligent or actually learning (at least not yet).
    - circuit10 3y ago
      > “You're misunderstanding the thought experiment then.” So if I don’t agree with it, I’m misunderstanding it? It even says in the Wikipedia article for it: > "The overwhelming majority", notes BBS editor Stevan Harnad, "still think that the Chinese Room Argument is dead wrong". So don’t try to pretend it’s some absolute truth, it’s just a flawed argument > Programs don't contain understanding or intelligence, they contain instructions. Why can intelligence and understanding not come from a sufficiently complex set of instructions? > understanding is a conscious experience and neither a blender nor a recipe are sentient. That’s an odd definition of understanding. By my definition understanding is having information about something and the ability to process it such that you can effectively predict its behaviour and possibly take actions to change its state to fit a goal. I guess you will always win if you redefine all the words to mean what you want. Your definition is useless because it’s unfalsifiable because you can’t measure whether something is “sentient” > Just pointing out that convolutional neural networks are not self aware or intelligent or actually learning Self aware? Probably no Intelligent? To some extent, yes Learning? Of course they are, I don’t see how you can argue that they aren’t
      - 3y ago
12_throw_away 3y ago
> It clearly has some level of intelligence Absolutely not, this is not remotely "clear", and it's a very strange thing to assert. > The hallucinations don’t make it less intelligent because it’s not “trying” to avoid them, as you seem to know already What? No. What does "as you seem to know already" mean in this context?
- circuit10 3y ago
  > Absolutely not, this is not remotely "clear", and it's a very strange thing to assert. I guess it depends how you define intelligence but I guess I would say intelligence is the ability to find the best action to take to achieve a certain goal, and AI can do that reasonably well > What does "as you seem to know already" mean in this context? It means that based on the comment I was replying to the person seems to already understand what I just said