Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

worriedshuffle t1_j6o441o wrote

Reply to comment by Silvestron in [Discussion] Misinformation about ChatGPT and ML in media and where to find good sources of information by Silvestron

And in your example, continuing the pattern, just because a computer can’t do that it’s not intelligent? That’s an extremely narrow view of intelligence.

Animals evolved to be good at some very specific things to fill an ecological niche. Humans evolved to be good at different things. I mainly see people discounting computer capabilities by measuring them against humans. Things that are easy for us are hard for computers and vice versa. But it’s highly unlikely that computers would be at all similar to people, since we’ve been specializing for millions of years.

1

Silvestron OP t1_j6oad9q wrote

Computers are machines, merely calculators. I'd not say a calculator is smart because it can do advanced math operations faster than any human being ever could.

I wasn't talking about AI in general, only about ChatGPT. While the definition of what intelligence is can be subjective, my frustration was more about the focus ChatGPT gets on things that are beyond its capabilities, like giving correct information or doing math. That happens because people see how good it is at some very complicated things but it can't do extremely basic things.

Maybe I should have used better words to express myself, but what I meant is that people seem to expect ChatGPT to be AGI, which is not.

1

worriedshuffle t1_j6oawul wrote

I would say something that can do calculations perfectly and faster than any human is pretty smart. If a human could do that we’d call them a genius.

1

Silvestron OP t1_j6odcec wrote

I think there will always be a discussion on where to set the bar on what's considered intelligence, but the bar has to be set somewhere, because if anything that is alive is to be considered intelligent then there'd be no point in talking about what intelligence is. Even plants have learned through evolution to point the leaves towards the sun. Should we consider that intelligence too?

1

worriedshuffle t1_j6odvxw wrote

And I’m saying that intelligence is just a word we use to point to ourselves. It doesn’t have an objective meaning which is why there is no test people can agree on.

1

Silvestron OP t1_j6oh3yy wrote

That will always happen on anything that we decide pretty much arbitrarily. Where does the color blue start and end in the electromagnetic spectrum? No one can objectively say so, but it's still useful referring to things as blue or whatever color they are.

1

worriedshuffle t1_j6oi2n0 wrote

Yes, and imagine how annoying it would be for people to keep saying “that’s not really blue”.

1

Silvestron OP t1_j6on0u5 wrote

It could start a new debate about the dress on twitter.

1