4 ms·

>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

>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
    >ChatGPT has no understanding of the rules that it communicates so perfectly. Right >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 never disagreed that 4 can't play chess. It's right in my first comment. I literally say LLMs can play chess and you just tested a model that couldn't. >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. You're still making the same mistake here. If a scientist happens upon a piece of yellow metal and runs every gold test there is on the metal and it passes then that is gold. What you are doing here is essentially saying that it is "fake gold that is immaterial in effect from real gold". It's just kind of a meaningless statement. The only thing any human does is "demonstrate understanding". I can't peek into your brain and say you understand. You can't prove to me right now that you "actually understand".If I think you understand it's because I say you demonstrated it. There is no "actual understanding" separate from demonstrating it. >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. :) Either GPT doesn't understand what it's saying and this holds no importance or it does. You have to pick one. I could just as soon go to Claude to have this discussion and get different answers. Open AI obviously train it on how they want it to respond to this sort of questions.

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
  >ChatGPT has no understanding of the rules that it communicates so perfectly. Right >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 never disagreed that 4 can't play chess. It's right in my first comment. I literally say LLMs can play chess and you just tested a model that couldn't. >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. You're still making the same mistake here. If a scientist happens upon a piece of yellow metal and runs every gold test there is on the metal and it passes then that is gold. What you are doing here is essentially saying that it is "fake gold that is immaterial in effect from real gold". It's just kind of a meaningless statement. The only thing any human does is "demonstrate understanding". I can't peek into your brain and say you understand. You can't prove to me right now that you "actually understand".If I think you understand it's because I say you demonstrated it. There is no "actual understanding" separate from demonstrating it. >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. :) Either GPT doesn't understand what it's saying and this holds no importance or it does. You have to pick one. I could just as soon go to Claude to have this discussion and get different answers. Open AI obviously train it on how they want it to respond to this sort of questions.