5 ms·

What do you mean by speak? That word is doing a lot of work. Chatgpt can respond to a prompt, but speak seems a bridge too far. It performs statistical analysis

What do you mean by speak? That word is doing a lot of work. Chatgpt can respond to a prompt, but speak seems a bridge too far. It performs statistical analysis. [edit] I'm not sure what i would call its actions, if not speech though. It does not think independently, but it does pass information. I guess it computes an answer.

munchler 3y ago
I mean you can have a conversation with it in English. You can use slang, idioms, misspellings, invalid grammar, and it will track you just fine. This was a sci-fi dream a decade ago and now it’s reality.
- EchoChamberMan 3y ago
  The dream is for intelligence, not just a parrot.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    If intelligence is your personal dream, that's fine. The statement -however- was "it speaks fluent English." I think several LLMs have sufficiently demonstrated the ability to communicate concepts using natural language to be able to say that the statement is true. If you tie an LLM to underlying software (and thus also ultimately hardware, if desired), it can take your instructions in natural language, translate them into a form suitable for the software to process, and then take the output and render that back into intelligible natural language. On that basis, I would argue that the statement "it speaks fluent English" is essentially correct. If you assert "but that has nothing to do with intelligence", you may or may not be correct, but -combining personal empirical observation with your world model- , intelligence would then appear to be orthogonal to the ability to speak English. Either that, or there is a flaw in your world model. Whatever the case may be, LLMs are quite evidently capable of communicating in English.
    - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
      Yes, and I don't disagree it communicates. I even went so far as to look up the definition of the word speak, and there are two that are relevant. One is a mechanical interpretation, producing english words, and the other is about feelings and thoughts. gpts qualify under the mechanical definition, but not the thoughts and feelings one. [Edit] And the dream isn't one of mine, the parent references "sci fi dream."
      - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
        Ok, if we agree it communicates in natural language, we're pretty much in agreement. Are we still arguing whether "able to speak english" is or is not a subset of "able to communicate in natural language", or are we in agreement in our entirety now? And there are many "sci fi dream"s of course, one of which is/was for computers to be able to communicate in natural language. (See eg: star trek, iron man)
        EchoChamberMan 3y ago
        There's a third option! We agree gpts do speak in the mechanical sense, but not in the sense of sharing thoughts or feelings. I often think of the "Fool's Choice" from "Crucial Conversations:" saying nothing, or being emotional, when the best path is the middle ground, a thoughtful response. Something I am still working on!
DiggyJohnson 3y ago
It communicates in English. It can literally "speak" if connected to a voice interface, of course. Are you trying to miss the point, or do you not believe that ChatGPT can fluently communicate in English without requiring additional input modes for communication? You clearly have a point you'd like to make, but I don't think claiming that ChatGPT can't "speak" English is a effective way to make it. It can.
- EchoChamberMan 3y ago
  To me speaking requires independent thought and motive, which gpt's do not have. If I as a human want to express myself, I am capable of that. Gpt's only respond with a series of plausible tokens. Someone mentioned in fine arts they make a distinction between craft and art, which is an excellent point. [Edit] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39423510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39423510 [Edit] If all it takes to "speak" is vocalizing sounds, does text to speech count? [Edit] I guess it's in the name, text to "speech." Again, gpts do not have independent agency.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    What word would you to describe what ChatGPT is doing then? Would "mimic-ing speech" suffice, for you? GPT responds in a "series of plausible tokens" that would pass as fluent English if generated by a human. Let's put aside the vocalization point, that's a distraction.
    - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
      I think compute is a more appropriate term, but your right it's certainly an awkward phrase. It pains me when people compare gpts to humans - we're incredibly more complex and advanced.
    - mvdtnz 3y ago
      It generates text.
      - 3y ago
Kim_Bruning 3y ago
"Cells are not alive, they just execute chemical reactions" "Computers can't actually do calculations, they're just a bunch of circuits" "Cars don't actually move, they're just a heat engine" "Chat GPT doesn't speak and understand natural language, it just performs statistical analysis" - Eppur si muove. - We define cells as being alive. We use computers to do maths. Cars are used to travel from A to B. And an LLM can accept instructions in a natural language, carry them out, and report back in natural language.
- EchoChamberMan 3y ago
  Maybe the word is technically accurate. [Edit] Alive is also a word with a lot of ambiguity associated. I'm not sure we have a clear definition. If "I think therefore I am" is the requirement, gpts do not qualify, as they do not act independently. [Edit] Definition 1) To produce words by means of sounds; talk. - gpt passes Definition 2) To express thoughts or feelings to convey information in speech or writing. - gpt fails [Edit] You used quotes, but I never said most of those things.
  - moshun 3y ago
    The best kind of accurate
    - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
      Except not really.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    If you lazily googled it the same way I did, you would have also found: Definition 3) To convey information or ideas in text. (gpt passes this one) By the way, dictionary definitions are often very fuzzy, so this is not really any sort of great evidence for anything. More me returning your lackadaisical volley with the same vim and vigor as I received it. ;-) I bet you can do better!
    - 3y ago

munchler 3y ago

I mean you can have a conversation with it in English. You can use slang, idioms, misspellings, invalid grammar, and it will track you just fine. This was a sci-fi dream a decade ago and now it’s reality.

EchoChamberMan 3y ago
The dream is for intelligence, not just a parrot.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  If intelligence is your personal dream, that's fine. The statement -however- was "it speaks fluent English." I think several LLMs have sufficiently demonstrated the ability to communicate concepts using natural language to be able to say that the statement is true. If you tie an LLM to underlying software (and thus also ultimately hardware, if desired), it can take your instructions in natural language, translate them into a form suitable for the software to process, and then take the output and render that back into intelligible natural language. On that basis, I would argue that the statement "it speaks fluent English" is essentially correct. If you assert "but that has nothing to do with intelligence", you may or may not be correct, but -combining personal empirical observation with your world model- , intelligence would then appear to be orthogonal to the ability to speak English. Either that, or there is a flaw in your world model. Whatever the case may be, LLMs are quite evidently capable of communicating in English.
  - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
    Yes, and I don't disagree it communicates. I even went so far as to look up the definition of the word speak, and there are two that are relevant. One is a mechanical interpretation, producing english words, and the other is about feelings and thoughts. gpts qualify under the mechanical definition, but not the thoughts and feelings one. [Edit] And the dream isn't one of mine, the parent references "sci fi dream."
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      Ok, if we agree it communicates in natural language, we're pretty much in agreement. Are we still arguing whether "able to speak english" is or is not a subset of "able to communicate in natural language", or are we in agreement in our entirety now? And there are many "sci fi dream"s of course, one of which is/was for computers to be able to communicate in natural language. (See eg: star trek, iron man)
      - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
        There's a third option! We agree gpts do speak in the mechanical sense, but not in the sense of sharing thoughts or feelings. I often think of the "Fool's Choice" from "Crucial Conversations:" saying nothing, or being emotional, when the best path is the middle ground, a thoughtful response. Something I am still working on!

DiggyJohnson 3y ago

It communicates in English. It can literally "speak" if connected to a voice interface, of course. Are you trying to miss the point, or do you not believe that ChatGPT can fluently communicate in English without requiring additional input modes for communication? You clearly have a point you'd like to make, but I don't think claiming that ChatGPT can't "speak" English is a effective way to make it. It can.

EchoChamberMan 3y ago
To me speaking requires independent thought and motive, which gpt's do not have. If I as a human want to express myself, I am capable of that. Gpt's only respond with a series of plausible tokens. Someone mentioned in fine arts they make a distinction between craft and art, which is an excellent point. [Edit] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39423510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39423510 [Edit] If all it takes to "speak" is vocalizing sounds, does text to speech count? [Edit] I guess it's in the name, text to "speech." Again, gpts do not have independent agency.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  What word would you to describe what ChatGPT is doing then? Would "mimic-ing speech" suffice, for you? GPT responds in a "series of plausible tokens" that would pass as fluent English if generated by a human. Let's put aside the vocalization point, that's a distraction.
  - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
    I think compute is a more appropriate term, but your right it's certainly an awkward phrase. It pains me when people compare gpts to humans - we're incredibly more complex and advanced.
  - mvdtnz 3y ago
    It generates text.
    - 3y ago

Kim_Bruning 3y ago

"Cells are not alive, they just execute chemical reactions" "Computers can't actually do calculations, they're just a bunch of circuits" "Cars don't actually move, they're just a heat engine" "Chat GPT doesn't speak and understand natural language, it just performs statistical analysis" - Eppur si muove. - We define cells as being alive. We use computers to do maths. Cars are used to travel from A to B. And an LLM can accept instructions in a natural language, carry them out, and report back in natural language.

EchoChamberMan 3y ago
Maybe the word is technically accurate. [Edit] Alive is also a word with a lot of ambiguity associated. I'm not sure we have a clear definition. If "I think therefore I am" is the requirement, gpts do not qualify, as they do not act independently. [Edit] Definition 1) To produce words by means of sounds; talk. - gpt passes Definition 2) To express thoughts or feelings to convey information in speech or writing. - gpt fails [Edit] You used quotes, but I never said most of those things.
- moshun 3y ago
  The best kind of accurate
  - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
    Except not really.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  If you lazily googled it the same way I did, you would have also found: Definition 3) To convey information or ideas in text. (gpt passes this one) By the way, dictionary definitions are often very fuzzy, so this is not really any sort of great evidence for anything. More me returning your lackadaisical volley with the same vim and vigor as I received it. ;-) I bet you can do better!
  - 3y ago