6 ms·

> "I dunno, do they do more than that? Seems like it to me." When I said "I'm not saying this is an AGI" and you reply with "I dunno human brains do more than

> "I dunno, do they do more than that? Seems like it to me." When I said "I'm not saying this is an AGI" and you reply with "I dunno human brains do more than ChatGPT" it feels like you haven't understood the discussion - that part was never contested. > "some clever anti-nonsense filtering" Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote 'The opposite of intelligence isn't stupidity'. On an A/B test, stupid is guessing randomly and that approach scores 50%. Scoring 0% takes as much intelligence as 100% because it requires knowing the right answer to be able to avoid it every time. Being able to identify nonsense is sense. At the risk of being tautological, "clever" is clever. If the neurons in your brain are the scratch paper in the Chinese room, each one isn't aware of the content of the light waves or the finger muscle signals, and you conclude the Chinese room doesn't understand, shouldn't you conclude that your brain doesn't understand? If your brain does understand shouldn't you conclude the Chinese room would understand? I claim that ChatGPT being able to explain bridging and give further examples is behaviour which demonstrates more understanding than a rock, than a calculator, a wordlist, a spellchecker, a plain Markov chain has. You say there's "no understanding or anything close to it" - how would ChatGPT's response look different if it did understand the concept of bridging? If you cannot suggest any way its output would look different to how it looks now and instead have to resort to changing the subject, shouldn't you retract that claim? > "Does a Chinese Room “understand”? I say no" Then you must say a human doesn't understand. For what else is there in a human brain except a finite amount of learned behavioural rules for signal inputs and outputs? Learned over a billion years of evolution in the structure, and filled in by a lifetime of nurture.

vundercind 2y ago
> If you cannot suggest any way its output would look different to how it looks now and instead have to resort to changing the subject, shouldn't you retract that claim? For one thing, I expect we’d not see so many cases of them chasing (if you will) the prompt and request into silliness. The code attempts to satisfy prompts in a transparently mechanical fashion, which is part of why they so gleefully (if you will) mislead. There’s no understanding. You can ask them to correct and they might, but they can also be induced to correct the already-correct, so that means nothing. To the extent we fix that, it’s not by adding any factor that might represent understanding, it’s further prompting that amounts to “follow these patterns slightly differently”. The fix isn’t, so far, “teaching” them to understand. Maybe we’ll get there! But we don’t appear to be anywhere near that yet. > Then you must say a human doesn't understand. For what else is there in a human brain except a finite amount of learned behavioural rules for signal inputs and outputs? Learned over a billion years of evolution in the structure, and filled in by a lifetime of nurture. The thing about the Chinese Room is that we comprehend the entire process, and there’s no room for some unknown factor affecting the output—or for a known factor that might be processing something like what we mean by understanding (let alone consciousness, say). Every single part of what an LLM does can be replicated with big books of lookup tables, dice, and a list of rules. There’s nowhere for anything to do the understanding to exist. It’s not that we have to be confused by part of it for that to be there—I’m not saying mystery is a necessary component—just that this process doesn’t have a place for that to be.
- jodrellblank 2y ago
  > "For one thing, I expect we’d not see so many cases of them chasing (if you will) the prompt and request into silliness." In the one example I gave you saw one output and declared it "not understanding the concept of bridging". I'm asking specifically that output, how would it look different if ChatGPT had some understanding of the concept of bridging? You're back to arguing "it's not human level!" which was not my claim. My claim is that it's above zero level. In another comment I asked it to use the concept of bridging in new ways, and it provided sentences which have no hits on Google but are plausibly the kind of thing I might see in a book from a human author. > "There’s no understanding" Say to your pet "I like it when you do human-like things such as standing on two feet. Come up with more human-style things for more treats" and it won't. You can ask ChatGPT to come up with more uses of the bridging concept, and it does. That is demonstrating understanding at higher than rock level and higher than rat level, and you can't reject that evidence just by repeatedly saying "there's no understanding there's no understanding there's no understanding". > "they can also be induced to correct the already-correct, so that means nothing." So can I; if my boss tells me there is an error and I need to correct it, I might correct a non-error to please them. Knowingly ("I'll change this part from correct to wrong if that pleases them") or unknowingly ("if they tell me there is an error there must be one, I'll take a guess that this bit is wrong and put something else here"). Does that show I have no understanding? > "Every single part of what an LLM does can be replicated with big books of lookup tables, dice, and a list of rules. There’s nowhere for anything to do the understanding to exist." You're doing the God of the Gaps argument with the human brain - an LED screen is RGB pixels, there's nowhere for a picture of a cat to exist separately from bright and dark pixels. A book is printed characters, there's nowhere for a story to exist separate from blobs of ink on paper. A brain is meat grown from a foetus, uses ~20 Watts of energy, if the blood supply is cutoff then it dies, if it gets too hot or cold then it dies, there are many areas which can be damaged and harm something like leg movement but there is no single area which can be damaged which stops 'understanding' but leaves everything else unchanged, there are no examples of people being decapitated, having no brain, having brain death, and still having 'understanding' provided by whatever other thing you are implying exists and does understanding. There's nowhere for anything to do the understanding to exist, unless there is a) new physics which aligns perfectly with every observation we have about the brain but also augments it an adds some magical 'understanding' thing which can't be done or simulated in software. b) something non-physical such as a soul which is tied closely to the meat and powered by the food and blood and can't be tied to silicon because reasons. c) ??? As far as I can see this isn't reasoning from anything more convincing than you not wanting to accept the Occam's Razor simpler explanation that a purely physical information processing system can understand. (Or that humans don't understand and it's all some weird illusion; the picture of the cat is not in the LED screen, it is in the eye of the beholder. The understanding isn't in your behaviour, it's in the beholder's interpretation, I believe you understand because you demonstrate the behaviours of understanding. We are seeing intelligence in others where there isn't any. And that view turned on ourselves is our own perception of our own understanding - we see ourselves identifying patterns, extrapolating patterns, continuing coherent sentences, and conclude that we must have 'understanding' as a thing separate from those behaviours). > "The thing about the Chinese Room is that we comprehend the entire process, and there’s no room for some unknown factor affecting the output" We don't comprehend the entire Chinese Room; the instructions that Searle is following are a massive handwave. Does following the instructions require Searle to make human judgements on where to branch? Then it's offloading understanding onto his human brain. Does it not require that but it still outputs coherent responses? Then the instructions must encode intelligence in them in some way - if intelligent behaviour doesn't demonstrate intelligence we're in non-scientific nonsense land. Peter Cochrane wrote about 'dying by installments' of a human turned into a cyborg replaced bit by bit, Ship of Theseus style. We can do similar and make up a Cochrane's Chinese Brain - instead of a neuron firing and affecting the connected neurons, it raises an alert and Searle walks over and writes down the firing pattern on a scratch pad, walks to all the other relevant neurons, and taps in the firing pattern on an input device, without understanding the information content of the firing pattern. Does the brain keep responding coherent Chinese but no longer understand Chinese?

vundercind 2y ago

> If you cannot suggest any way its output would look different to how it looks now and instead have to resort to changing the subject, shouldn't you retract that claim? For one thing, I expect we’d not see so many cases of them chasing (if you will) the prompt and request into silliness. The code attempts to satisfy prompts in a transparently mechanical fashion, which is part of why they so gleefully (if you will) mislead. There’s no understanding. You can ask them to correct and they might, but they can also be induced to correct the already-correct, so that means nothing. To the extent we fix that, it’s not by adding any factor that might represent understanding, it’s further prompting that amounts to “follow these patterns slightly differently”. The fix isn’t, so far, “teaching” them to understand. Maybe we’ll get there! But we don’t appear to be anywhere near that yet. > Then you must say a human doesn't understand. For what else is there in a human brain except a finite amount of learned behavioural rules for signal inputs and outputs? Learned over a billion years of evolution in the structure, and filled in by a lifetime of nurture. The thing about the Chinese Room is that we comprehend the entire process, and there’s no room for some unknown factor affecting the output—or for a known factor that might be processing something like what we mean by understanding (let alone consciousness, say). Every single part of what an LLM does can be replicated with big books of lookup tables, dice, and a list of rules. There’s nowhere for anything to do the understanding to exist. It’s not that we have to be confused by part of it for that to be there—I’m not saying mystery is a necessary component—just that this process doesn’t have a place for that to be.

jodrellblank 2y ago
> "For one thing, I expect we’d not see so many cases of them chasing (if you will) the prompt and request into silliness." In the one example I gave you saw one output and declared it "not understanding the concept of bridging". I'm asking specifically that output, how would it look different if ChatGPT had some understanding of the concept of bridging? You're back to arguing "it's not human level!" which was not my claim. My claim is that it's above zero level. In another comment I asked it to use the concept of bridging in new ways, and it provided sentences which have no hits on Google but are plausibly the kind of thing I might see in a book from a human author. > "There’s no understanding" Say to your pet "I like it when you do human-like things such as standing on two feet. Come up with more human-style things for more treats" and it won't. You can ask ChatGPT to come up with more uses of the bridging concept, and it does. That is demonstrating understanding at higher than rock level and higher than rat level, and you can't reject that evidence just by repeatedly saying "there's no understanding there's no understanding there's no understanding". > "they can also be induced to correct the already-correct, so that means nothing." So can I; if my boss tells me there is an error and I need to correct it, I might correct a non-error to please them. Knowingly ("I'll change this part from correct to wrong if that pleases them") or unknowingly ("if they tell me there is an error there must be one, I'll take a guess that this bit is wrong and put something else here"). Does that show I have no understanding? > "Every single part of what an LLM does can be replicated with big books of lookup tables, dice, and a list of rules. There’s nowhere for anything to do the understanding to exist." You're doing the God of the Gaps argument with the human brain - an LED screen is RGB pixels, there's nowhere for a picture of a cat to exist separately from bright and dark pixels. A book is printed characters, there's nowhere for a story to exist separate from blobs of ink on paper. A brain is meat grown from a foetus, uses ~20 Watts of energy, if the blood supply is cutoff then it dies, if it gets too hot or cold then it dies, there are many areas which can be damaged and harm something like leg movement but there is no single area which can be damaged which stops 'understanding' but leaves everything else unchanged, there are no examples of people being decapitated, having no brain, having brain death, and still having 'understanding' provided by whatever other thing you are implying exists and does understanding. There's nowhere for anything to do the understanding to exist, unless there is a) new physics which aligns perfectly with every observation we have about the brain but also augments it an adds some magical 'understanding' thing which can't be done or simulated in software. b) something non-physical such as a soul which is tied closely to the meat and powered by the food and blood and can't be tied to silicon because reasons. c) ??? As far as I can see this isn't reasoning from anything more convincing than you not wanting to accept the Occam's Razor simpler explanation that a purely physical information processing system can understand. (Or that humans don't understand and it's all some weird illusion; the picture of the cat is not in the LED screen, it is in the eye of the beholder. The understanding isn't in your behaviour, it's in the beholder's interpretation, I believe you understand because you demonstrate the behaviours of understanding. We are seeing intelligence in others where there isn't any. And that view turned on ourselves is our own perception of our own understanding - we see ourselves identifying patterns, extrapolating patterns, continuing coherent sentences, and conclude that we must have 'understanding' as a thing separate from those behaviours). > "The thing about the Chinese Room is that we comprehend the entire process, and there’s no room for some unknown factor affecting the output" We don't comprehend the entire Chinese Room; the instructions that Searle is following are a massive handwave. Does following the instructions require Searle to make human judgements on where to branch? Then it's offloading understanding onto his human brain. Does it not require that but it still outputs coherent responses? Then the instructions must encode intelligence in them in some way - if intelligent behaviour doesn't demonstrate intelligence we're in non-scientific nonsense land. Peter Cochrane wrote about 'dying by installments' of a human turned into a cyborg replaced bit by bit, Ship of Theseus style. We can do similar and make up a Cochrane's Chinese Brain - instead of a neuron firing and affecting the connected neurons, it raises an alert and Searle walks over and writes down the firing pattern on a scratch pad, walks to all the other relevant neurons, and taps in the firing pattern on an input device, without understanding the information content of the firing pattern. Does the brain keep responding coherent Chinese but no longer understand Chinese?