4 ms·

>I could walk into a club in Vegas, throw down $10,000 cash for a VIP table, and start throwing around $100 bills. If you can withdraw $10,000 cash at all to d

>I could walk into a club in Vegas, throw down $10,000 cash for a VIP table, and start throwing around $100 bills. If you can withdraw $10,000 cash at all to dispose as you please (including for this 'trick' game) then my friend you are wealthy from the perspective of the vast majority of humans living on the planet. And if you balk at doing this, maybe because you cannot actually withdraw that much, or maybe because it is badly needed for something else, then you are not actually capable of performing the test now, are you ?

ses1984 1y ago
I’m sorry but I feel you missed the point. Couldn’t someone else just give him a bunch of cash to blow on the test, to spoil the result? Couldn’t he give away his last dollar but pretend he’s just going to another casino? Observing someone’s behavior in Vegas is a just looking at a proxy for wealth, not the actual wealth.
- famouswaffles 1y ago
  >Couldn’t someone else just give him a bunch of cash to blow on the test, to spoil the result? If you still need a rich person to pass the test, then the test is working as intended. Person A is rich or person A is backed by a rich sponsor is not a material difference for the test. You are hinging too much on minute details of the analogy. In the real word, your riches can be sponsored by someone else, but for whatever intelligence task we envision, if the machine is taking it then the machine is taking it. >Couldn’t he give away his last dollar but pretend he’s just going to another casino? Again, if you have $10,000 you can just withdraw today and give away, last dollar or not, the vast majority of people on this planet would call you wealthy. You have to understand that this is just not something most humans can actually do, even on their deathbed.
  - noduerme 1y ago
    >> Again, if you have $10,000 you can just withdraw today and give away, last dollar or not, the vast majority of people on this planet would call you wealthy. You have to understand that this is just not something most humans can actually do, even on their deathbed. So, most people can't get $1 Trillion to build a machine that fools people into thinking it's intelligent. That's probably also not a trick that will ever be repeated.
    - famouswaffles 1y ago
      When your arguments fall apart, it's fine to admit it or to just not respond.
      - ses1984 1y ago
        > Observing someone’s behavior in Vegas is a just looking at a proxy for wealth, not the actual wealth.
- noduerme 1y ago
  >> Couldn’t someone else just give him a bunch of cash to blow on the test, to spoil the result? Isn't this what most major AI companies are doing anyway?
noduerme 1y ago
That's really not true. Lots of people in America can have $0 in net worth and get a credit card, use that to buy some jewelry and then sell it, and have $10k in cash. The fact that the trick only works once proves that it's a trick.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- famouswaffles 1y ago
  You're not making much sense. Like the other user, you are hinging on non-transferrable details of your analogy, which is not the actual reality of the situation. You've invented a story where the user can pass the test by only doing this once and hinged your point on that, but that's just that - a story. All of our tests and benchmarks account for repeatability. The machine in question has no problem replicating its results on whatever test, so it's a moot point.
  - noduerme 1y ago
    The LLM can replicate the trick of fooling users into thinking it's conscious as long as there is a sufficient supply of money to keep the LLM running and a sufficient number of new users who don't know the trick. If you don't account for either of those resources running out, you're not testing whether its feats are truly repeatable.
    - famouswaffles 1y ago
      >The LLM can replicate the trick of fooling users into thinking it's conscious as long as there is a sufficient supply of money to keep the LLM running and a sufficient number of new users who don't know the trick. Okay ? and you, presumably a human can replicate the trick of fooling me into thinking you're conscious as long as there is a sufficient supply of food to keep you running. So what's your point ? With each comment, you make less sense. Sorry to tell you, but there is no trick.
      - 1y ago

ses1984 1y ago

I’m sorry but I feel you missed the point. Couldn’t someone else just give him a bunch of cash to blow on the test, to spoil the result? Couldn’t he give away his last dollar but pretend he’s just going to another casino? Observing someone’s behavior in Vegas is a just looking at a proxy for wealth, not the actual wealth.

famouswaffles 1y ago
>Couldn’t someone else just give him a bunch of cash to blow on the test, to spoil the result? If you still need a rich person to pass the test, then the test is working as intended. Person A is rich or person A is backed by a rich sponsor is not a material difference for the test. You are hinging too much on minute details of the analogy. In the real word, your riches can be sponsored by someone else, but for whatever intelligence task we envision, if the machine is taking it then the machine is taking it. >Couldn’t he give away his last dollar but pretend he’s just going to another casino? Again, if you have $10,000 you can just withdraw today and give away, last dollar or not, the vast majority of people on this planet would call you wealthy. You have to understand that this is just not something most humans can actually do, even on their deathbed.
- noduerme 1y ago
  >> Again, if you have $10,000 you can just withdraw today and give away, last dollar or not, the vast majority of people on this planet would call you wealthy. You have to understand that this is just not something most humans can actually do, even on their deathbed. So, most people can't get $1 Trillion to build a machine that fools people into thinking it's intelligent. That's probably also not a trick that will ever be repeated.
  - famouswaffles 1y ago
    When your arguments fall apart, it's fine to admit it or to just not respond.
    - ses1984 1y ago
      > Observing someone’s behavior in Vegas is a just looking at a proxy for wealth, not the actual wealth.
noduerme 1y ago
>> Couldn’t someone else just give him a bunch of cash to blow on the test, to spoil the result? Isn't this what most major AI companies are doing anyway?

noduerme 1y ago

That's really not true. Lots of people in America can have $0 in net worth and get a credit card, use that to buy some jewelry and then sell it, and have $10k in cash. The fact that the trick only works once proves that it's a trick.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
famouswaffles 1y ago
You're not making much sense. Like the other user, you are hinging on non-transferrable details of your analogy, which is not the actual reality of the situation. You've invented a story where the user can pass the test by only doing this once and hinged your point on that, but that's just that - a story. All of our tests and benchmarks account for repeatability. The machine in question has no problem replicating its results on whatever test, so it's a moot point.
- noduerme 1y ago
  The LLM can replicate the trick of fooling users into thinking it's conscious as long as there is a sufficient supply of money to keep the LLM running and a sufficient number of new users who don't know the trick. If you don't account for either of those resources running out, you're not testing whether its feats are truly repeatable.
  - famouswaffles 1y ago
    >The LLM can replicate the trick of fooling users into thinking it's conscious as long as there is a sufficient supply of money to keep the LLM running and a sufficient number of new users who don't know the trick. Okay ? and you, presumably a human can replicate the trick of fooling me into thinking you're conscious as long as there is a sufficient supply of food to keep you running. So what's your point ? With each comment, you make less sense. Sorry to tell you, but there is no trick.
    - 1y ago