4 ms·

When asked how to falsify their assertion, perhaps by explaining what exactly is "thinking" in the human brain that can and/or will be possible to emulate... .

When asked how to falsify their assertion, perhaps by explaining what exactly is "thinking" in the human brain that can and/or will be possible to emulate... ... someone else points out that the same models that can't "think" are somehow turning in gold-level performance at international math and programming competitions, making Fields Medalists sit up and take notice, winning art competitions, composing music indistinguishable from human output, and making entire subreddits fail the Turing test.

Terr_ 11mo ago
A couple decades of chess programs nods knowingly: "First time?"
- CamperBob2 11mo ago
  A couple decades of chess programs nods knowingly: "First time?" Uh huh. Good luck getting Stockfish to do your math homework while Leela works on your next waifu. LLMs play chess poorly. Chess engines do nothing else at all. That's kind of a big difference, wouldn't you say?
  - ben_w 11mo ago
    > That's kind of a big difference, wouldn't you say? To their utility. Not sure if it matters on the question "thinking?"; even if for the debaters "thinking" requires consciousness/qualia (and that varies), there's nothing more than guesses as to where that emerges from.
  - gowld 11mo ago
    Terr_ was agreeing with you and highlighting how old the debate is.
    - Terr_ 11mo ago
      Highlighting, yes, agreeing, no. For my original earlier reply, the main subtext would be: "Your complaint is ridiculously biased." For the later reply about chess, perhaps: "You're asserting that tricking, amazing, or beating a human is a reliable sign of human-like intelligence. We already know that is untrue from decades of past experience."
      - CamperBob2 11mo ago
        You're asserting that tricking, amazing, or beating a human is a reliable sign of human-like intelligence. I don't know who's asserting that (other than Alan Turing, I guess); certainly not me. Humans are, if anything, easier to fool than our current crude AI models are. Heck, ELIZA was enough to fool non-specialist humans. In any case, nobody was "tricked" at the IMO. What happened there required legitimate reasoning abilities. The burden of proof falls decisively on those who assert otherwise.
nh23423fefe 11mo ago
god of the gaps
- CamperBob2 11mo ago
  Exactly. As soon as a model does something it "wasn't supposed to be able to do," two gaps open up on either side.
nutjob2 11mo ago
Computers can perform math and numerous other tasks billions of times faster than humans, whats your point? This is exactly the problem. Claims about AI are unfalsifiable, thus your various non-sequiturs about AI 'thinking'.

Terr_ 11mo ago

A couple decades of chess programs nods knowingly: "First time?"

CamperBob2 11mo ago
A couple decades of chess programs nods knowingly: "First time?" Uh huh. Good luck getting Stockfish to do your math homework while Leela works on your next waifu. LLMs play chess poorly. Chess engines do nothing else at all. That's kind of a big difference, wouldn't you say?
- ben_w 11mo ago
  > That's kind of a big difference, wouldn't you say? To their utility. Not sure if it matters on the question "thinking?"; even if for the debaters "thinking" requires consciousness/qualia (and that varies), there's nothing more than guesses as to where that emerges from.
- gowld 11mo ago
  Terr_ was agreeing with you and highlighting how old the debate is.
  - Terr_ 11mo ago
    Highlighting, yes, agreeing, no. For my original earlier reply, the main subtext would be: "Your complaint is ridiculously biased." For the later reply about chess, perhaps: "You're asserting that tricking, amazing, or beating a human is a reliable sign of human-like intelligence. We already know that is untrue from decades of past experience."
    - CamperBob2 11mo ago
      You're asserting that tricking, amazing, or beating a human is a reliable sign of human-like intelligence. I don't know who's asserting that (other than Alan Turing, I guess); certainly not me. Humans are, if anything, easier to fool than our current crude AI models are. Heck, ELIZA was enough to fool non-specialist humans. In any case, nobody was "tricked" at the IMO. What happened there required legitimate reasoning abilities. The burden of proof falls decisively on those who assert otherwise.

nh23423fefe 11mo ago

god of the gaps

CamperBob2 11mo ago
Exactly. As soon as a model does something it "wasn't supposed to be able to do," two gaps open up on either side.

nutjob2 11mo ago

Computers can perform math and numerous other tasks billions of times faster than humans, whats your point? This is exactly the problem. Claims about AI are unfalsifiable, thus your various non-sequiturs about AI 'thinking'.