4 ms·

Except that the premise of ChatGPT is that it "knows" things, and that you can ask it about these things in specific ways and it will answer. Further, that kno

Except that the premise of ChatGPT is that it "knows" things, and that you can ask it about these things in specific ways and it will answer. Further, that knowledge represents a vast body of training data that certainly includes the rules of chess, how pieces move, etc. This is verifiable. Go ask ChatGPT those questions now. How does a bishop or rook move? Can a piece move through or over another piece, etc. What is en passant? When can it be employed? You will find that it answers these correctly, and even provides examples. It talks about ranks and files, and authoritatively sprinkles in other knowledge related to the questions. But, then you put a board in front of it and you ask it to make moves, and it doesn't adhere to these rules. You're not asking it to win the game. Just make a legal move. But it cannot, even while confidently responding with invalid moves. So, it's not about whether it's been tuned to be a grandmaster. It's about whether it can even execute on the knowledge it clearly possesses. Now, turning back to your analogy with a human player. You ask Gary all of these questions and he gives you the answers perfectly, so you recognize that his factual knowledge is intact. But, despite his best efforts, he repeatedly makes illegal moves. You would have to conclude that there is some problem with reasoning or understanding what those facts actually mean in practice. That is the difference between appearing to understand and actually understanding. And certainly, there are some humans who fit this "appearance" description as well, perhaps through some processing deficit or otherwise. But as a broad category, this is something humans do quite well. The concept of understanding is really not complicated. When we explain something to someone and we ask the question "do you understand?", we're not asking whether they can memorize or repeat back what we just told them. We're asking something else. That something else is the well-understood (irony intended) meaning of "understand".

famouswaffles 3y ago
>Except that the premise of ChatGPT is that it "knows" things, and that you can ask it about these things in specific ways and it will answer. The premise of ChatGPT has never been that it knows everything. >So, it's not about whether it's been tuned to be a grandmaster. It's about whether it can even execute on the knowledge it clearly possesses. Factual knowledge on paper has never been a guarantee you can actually perform the task. In fact, it usually isn't. >And certainly, there are some humans who fit this "appearance" description as well, perhaps through some processing deficit or otherwise. But as a broad category, this is something humans do quite well. I'm telling you this is a normal occurrence and not something that only happens with a "processing deficit". You can rant about all the details or rules of a tennis game all you like and fail to play it, you can know the physics theory but still struggle to solve problems. Hell we don't need to leave chess, give our stranger a proper book with rules and the strategies employed by grandmasters. For a while after, He's still going to make illegal moves and he will be nowhere near the level of a grandmaster. >Again you are still not bringing up anything that serves as the distinguisher you want it to serve. The concept of understanding is really not complicated. When we explain something to someone and we ask the question "do you understand?", we're not asking whether they can memorize or repeat back what we just told them. We're asking something else. Ok and ? GPT passes many tests that demonstrate understanding.
- unclebucknasty 3y ago
  >You can rant about all the details or rules of a tennis game all you like and fail to play it This analogy reveals what you're missing. The correct analogy is not that you know the rules, but "fail to play" tennis (which requires physical aptitude, etc). It's that you can cite the rules, but actually try to hit the ball over the fence and claim a point when you succeed. Likewise, the stranger with the chess rule/strategies book. You're conflating quality with understanding. But, I've not claimed that all humans excel at or even understand all things. And, you've still not defined the gap between GPT being able to cite the rules of chess, yet not being able to apply them. >GPT passes many tests that demonstrate understanding. It actually does not. It's just better at making you believe it does when it simulates understanding in those tests.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    >Likewise, the stranger with the chess rule/strategies book. You're conflating quality with understanding. I'm not because he will still make illegal moves for some time and it appears no different. It's not just about level of play. >And, you've still not defined the gap between GPT being able to cite the rules of chess, yet not being able to apply them. GPT-4 can't play chess. It's that simple. Can cite rules but can't play is a common enough occurrence in humans. Sure it's interesting to see that disconnect but nothing so bizzare it needs to be "explained". And the training process is "dumb" like Evolution. It's not like a person reading a book anymore than evolution is like a person trying to create the "ultimate" animal so you can see things like this more often where there's a disconnect between the on paper rules and the environment for playing. >It actually does not. It's just better at making you believe it does when it simulates understanding in those tests. I'm sorry but this is just nonsense. Simulating understanding is a nonsensical argument. A plane isn't "simulating flight". It flies. If GPT can make it through whatever rigorous test you have in mind then it understands that thing. You want to believe in an imaginary distinguisher that's so important but can't be tested for and it's silly.
    - unclebucknasty 3y ago
      >but nothing so bizzare it needs to be "explained". It's not bizarre and I've already explained it: ChatGPT has no understanding of the rules that it communicates so perfectly. We've openly observed it in its errors. You just responded with another denial of that obvious fact, but you're now acknowledging that "GPT-4 can't play chess. It's that simple". So you've essentially agreed with what I've said, except to say you don't agree, but that you prefer no explanation to the obvious one. I'm not quite sure what to do with that. >A plane isn't "simulating flight". It flies. Respectfully, that is another irrelevant analogy. >You want to believe in an imaginary distinguisher that's so important but can't be tested for and it's silly. This entire discussion is about the distinguisher, so I wouldn't classify it as imaginary. You just keep repeating that it doesn't mean anything. But, I do agree that a model can be trained to a sufficient degree that its ability to demonstrate understanding is immaterial in effect from actual understanding. I also agree that this discussion has veered into silly territory. I clearly am not getting the point across, so I will respectfully thank you for the engagement. But, even ChatGPT will tell you that it doesn't "understand" in the traditional sense. That it essentially finds patterns, etc. So perhaps it will convince you where I could not. :) Thanks again for the discussion.

famouswaffles 3y ago

>Except that the premise of ChatGPT is that it "knows" things, and that you can ask it about these things in specific ways and it will answer. The premise of ChatGPT has never been that it knows everything. >So, it's not about whether it's been tuned to be a grandmaster. It's about whether it can even execute on the knowledge it clearly possesses. Factual knowledge on paper has never been a guarantee you can actually perform the task. In fact, it usually isn't. >And certainly, there are some humans who fit this "appearance" description as well, perhaps through some processing deficit or otherwise. But as a broad category, this is something humans do quite well. I'm telling you this is a normal occurrence and not something that only happens with a "processing deficit". You can rant about all the details or rules of a tennis game all you like and fail to play it, you can know the physics theory but still struggle to solve problems. Hell we don't need to leave chess, give our stranger a proper book with rules and the strategies employed by grandmasters. For a while after, He's still going to make illegal moves and he will be nowhere near the level of a grandmaster. >Again you are still not bringing up anything that serves as the distinguisher you want it to serve. The concept of understanding is really not complicated. When we explain something to someone and we ask the question "do you understand?", we're not asking whether they can memorize or repeat back what we just told them. We're asking something else. Ok and ? GPT passes many tests that demonstrate understanding.

unclebucknasty 3y ago
>You can rant about all the details or rules of a tennis game all you like and fail to play it This analogy reveals what you're missing. The correct analogy is not that you know the rules, but "fail to play" tennis (which requires physical aptitude, etc). It's that you can cite the rules, but actually try to hit the ball over the fence and claim a point when you succeed. Likewise, the stranger with the chess rule/strategies book. You're conflating quality with understanding. But, I've not claimed that all humans excel at or even understand all things. And, you've still not defined the gap between GPT being able to cite the rules of chess, yet not being able to apply them. >GPT passes many tests that demonstrate understanding. It actually does not. It's just better at making you believe it does when it simulates understanding in those tests.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  >Likewise, the stranger with the chess rule/strategies book. You're conflating quality with understanding. I'm not because he will still make illegal moves for some time and it appears no different. It's not just about level of play. >And, you've still not defined the gap between GPT being able to cite the rules of chess, yet not being able to apply them. GPT-4 can't play chess. It's that simple. Can cite rules but can't play is a common enough occurrence in humans. Sure it's interesting to see that disconnect but nothing so bizzare it needs to be "explained". And the training process is "dumb" like Evolution. It's not like a person reading a book anymore than evolution is like a person trying to create the "ultimate" animal so you can see things like this more often where there's a disconnect between the on paper rules and the environment for playing. >It actually does not. It's just better at making you believe it does when it simulates understanding in those tests. I'm sorry but this is just nonsense. Simulating understanding is a nonsensical argument. A plane isn't "simulating flight". It flies. If GPT can make it through whatever rigorous test you have in mind then it understands that thing. You want to believe in an imaginary distinguisher that's so important but can't be tested for and it's silly.
  - unclebucknasty 3y ago
    >but nothing so bizzare it needs to be "explained". It's not bizarre and I've already explained it: ChatGPT has no understanding of the rules that it communicates so perfectly. We've openly observed it in its errors. You just responded with another denial of that obvious fact, but you're now acknowledging that "GPT-4 can't play chess. It's that simple". So you've essentially agreed with what I've said, except to say you don't agree, but that you prefer no explanation to the obvious one. I'm not quite sure what to do with that. >A plane isn't "simulating flight". It flies. Respectfully, that is another irrelevant analogy. >You want to believe in an imaginary distinguisher that's so important but can't be tested for and it's silly. This entire discussion is about the distinguisher, so I wouldn't classify it as imaginary. You just keep repeating that it doesn't mean anything. But, I do agree that a model can be trained to a sufficient degree that its ability to demonstrate understanding is immaterial in effect from actual understanding. I also agree that this discussion has veered into silly territory. I clearly am not getting the point across, so I will respectfully thank you for the engagement. But, even ChatGPT will tell you that it doesn't "understand" in the traditional sense. That it essentially finds patterns, etc. So perhaps it will convince you where I could not. :) Thanks again for the discussion.