4 ms·
I think I've explained several times it can't plan as it only does one word at a time, your so called multistage plan document is not planned out in advance, it
by staticman2 2y ago
I think I've explained several times it can't plan as it only does one word at a time, your so called multistage plan document is not planned out in advance, it is generated one word at a time with no plan.
If you don't care about the technical aspects, why ask in the first place what Yann LeCun meant?
- qarl 2y agoFriend, it gave the answer 10, just like the illusionary calculator. I'm sorry you don't like how it got the answer. You take care now.
- staticman2 2y ago"Now I know you said it can't plan, but what if we all agree to call what it does planning? That would be very exciting for me. I can produce a parable about a calculator if that would help. LeCun says it has limitations, but what if all agree to call it omniscient and omnipotent? That would also be very exciting for me."
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- qarl 2y agoLook man, 5 + 5 = 10, even if it's implemented by monkeys on typewriters. This argument we're having is a version of the Chinese Room. I've never found Searle's argument persuasive, and I truly have no interest arguing it with you. This is the last time I will respond to you. I hope you have a nice day.
- staticman2 2y agoI don't think we're having an argument about the Chinese room, because as far as I know Le Cunn does not argue AI can't have "A mind, understanding or consciousness". Not have I, I simply talked about how LLMs work, as I understand them. There's a lot of confusion about these technologies, because tech enthusiasts like to exaggerate the state of the art's capabilities. You seem to be arguing "we must turn to philosophy to show CHATGPT is smarter than it would seem" which is not terribly convincing.
- qarl 2y agoNo. Take care now.