3 ms·
>It is impossible to accurately imitate the action of intelligent beings without being intelligent. Wait what? So a robot who is accurately copying the actions
by qsera 8mo ago
>It is impossible to accurately imitate the action of intelligent beings without being intelligent.
Wait what? So a robot who is accurately copying the actions of an intelligent human, is intelligent?
- empath75 8mo agoThat was probably phrased poorly. If a robot can independently accurately do what an intelligent person would do when placed in a novel situation, then yes, I would say it is intelligent. If it's just basically being a puppet, then no. You tell me what claude code is more like, a puppet, or a person?
- qsera 8mo agoIt is neither puppet or a person. It is a computer program.
- throw310822 8mo agoAs much as a bundle of an mp3 decoder and a terabyte of mp3 music are "just a program".
- UltraSane 8mo agoHow can you distinguish intelligence form a sufficiently accurate imitation of intelligence?
- slopinthebag 8mo agoBy "sufficiently accurate" do you mean identical? Because if so, it's not an imitation of intelligence at all, and the question is thus nonsensical.
- UltraSane 8mo ago"it's not an imitation of intelligence at all" But that is the key insight, how can you tell when an imitation of intelligence becomes the real thing?
- qsera 8mo agoWhen it stops hallucinating without explicit checks for that!
- empath75 8mo agoMaking mistakes does not make people unintelligent.
- qsera 8mo agoPeople don't hallucinate. That is they can pretty reliably assess if they know or don't know something.
- UltraSane 8mo agoSome people can reliably assess what the know, others cannot
- empath75 8mo agoYour comment is a perfect example of a human hallucinating something and not knowing they are wrong about it. People are confidently wrong about things _all the time_.
- throw310822 8mo agoYou say this confidently, but you're wrong... ah no wait... ;)
- qsera 8mo agoNo no, you don't understand. People can misunderstand. But they will not, for example, proceed to drive a car as if they have attended driving lessons when they have not. They might misremember, but they can know, for sure, if they have NOT come across some information. So if you ask someone if they know where `x` is, they might have came across that info, and still be wrong. But they will know if they have never come across it. A neural network will happily produce an output when when the input is completely out of range of the training data.