3 ms·

> I'm in favor of duck-typing these words Hard disagree. A subset of behaviours resembling or even "indistinguishable" from understanding should not be enough

• BoiledCabbage 3y ago
  > Hard disagree. A subset of behaviors resembling or even "indistinguishable" from understanding should not be enough to meet the definition. Nope, it doesn't work this way. One doesn't get to sit and try to say what something isn't w.r.t a 1st party experience (like understanding or consciousness), without saying how a 3rd party can define what it is. There is no valid argument for "this isn't understanding because my gut says so" without giving a way a person (a 3rd party to an llm) can say what understanding is. We will never have a 1st person "perspective" of a machine LLM. So if you want to claim as a 3rd party what understanding isn't, you need to define, using tool available to a 3rd party observer, what it is beyond "when my gut says so". And if you're defining something by external observation, you are duck typing. Put succinctly, the only practical (non- philosophical) definitions of consciousness, understanding, and intelligence will all be done via duck typing. As no one will ever have a 1st person view of these phenomena for other entities.