Submitted by Destiny_Knight t3_115vc9t in singularity
MysteryInc152 t1_j96eaav wrote
Reply to comment by zesterer in Proof of real intelligence? by Destiny_Knight
Your argument and position is weird and that meme is very cringe. You're not a genius for being idiotically reductive.
The problem here is the same as everyone else who takes this idiotic stance. We have definitions for reasoning and understanding that you decide to construe for your ill defined and vague assertions.
You think it's not reasoning ? Cool. Then rigorously define your meaning of reasoning and design tests to comprehensively evaluate it and people on. If you can't do this then you really have no business speaking on whether a language model can reason and understand or not.
nul9090 t1_j97krdy wrote
The hostility was uncalled for. What you're asking for is a lot of work for a Reddit post. But there are plenty of tests and anecdotes that would lead one to believe it is lacking in important ways in its capacity to reason and understand.
I'm not a fan of Gary Marcus but he raises valid criticisms here in a very recent essay: https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/how-not-to-test-gpt-3
Certainly, there are even more impressive models to come. I believe firmly that, some day, human intelligence will be surpassed by a machine.
MysteryInc152 t1_j97mqgt wrote
>The hostility was uncalled for.
It was I admit but I've seen the argument many times and I don't care for it. Also, if you're going to claim superior intelligence for your line of reasoning, I don't care for that either.
>What you're asking for is a lot of work for a Reddit post.
I honestly don't care how much work it is. That's the minimum. If you're going to upend traditional definitions of understanding and reasoning for your arguments then the burden of proof is on that person to show us why he/she should be taken seriously.
Tests are one thing. Practicality is another. Bing for instance has autonomous control of the searches it makes as well as the suggestions it gives. For all intents and purposes, it browses the internet on your behalf. Frankly, It should be plainly obvious that a system that can't exhibit theory of mind interacting with other systems would fall apart quickly on such tasks.
So it is passing tests and interacting with other systems/the world as if it had theory of mind. If after that, somebody says to me, "Oh it's not "true" Theory of mind' then to them I say, good day but I'm not going to argue philosophy with you.
We've reached the point where for a lot of areas, any perceived difference is just wholly irrelevant in a practical or scientific sense. At that point I have zero interest in arguing philosophy people have struggled to properly define or decipher since our inception.
diabeetis t1_j98290f wrote
Eh I think the hostility is appropriate
nul9090 t1_j983f73 wrote
Okay. I suppose, it all depends on what kind of conversation we want to have.
superluminary t1_j99gpns wrote
I want to have a nice productive conversation.
zesterer t1_j9707wd wrote
ok dude, have a good day
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments