• @Barbarian772 I don’t have to. It’s the ChatGPT people making extremely strong claims about equivalence of ChatGPT and human intelligence. I merely demand proof of that equivalence. Which they are unable to provide, and instead use rhetoric and parlor tricks and a lot of hand waving to divert and distract from that fact.

    • Barbarian772@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      GPT 4 is already more intelligent than the average human. Is it more intelligent than the most intelligent human? No, but most humans aren’t either. Can it create new knowledge? No, but the average human can’t either.

      How can you say it isn’t intelligent?

      • @Barbarian772 no, GTP is not more “intelligent” than any human being, just like a calculator is not more “intelligent” than any human being — even if it can perform certain specific operations faster.

        Since you used the term “intelligent” though, I would ask for your definition of what it means? Ideally one that excludes calculators but includes human beings. Without such clear definition, this is, again, just hand-waving.

        I wrote about it in a bit longer form:
        https://rys.io/en/165.html

        • Barbarian772@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think the Wikipedia definition is fine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence. Excluding AI just because it’s AI is imo plain stupid and goes against all scientific principles.

          I have definitely met humans that are less intelligent that Chat GPT. It can hold a conversation and ace every standardized test we have. It finished law exams, medical exams and other exams from many different countries with a passing grade.

          Can you give me a definition of intelligence that excludes Chat GPT and includes all human beings? And no just excluding Computers for the sake of it doesn’t count.

          • @Barbarian772 it was shown over and over and over again that ChatGPT lacks the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, reasoning, planning, critical thinking, and problem-solving.

            That’s partially because it does not have a model of the world, an ontology, it cannot *reason*. It just regurgitates text, probabilistically.

            So, glad we established that!

                • Barbarian772@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How can i proof it? In my opinion how a system comes to an answer doesn’t matter, in yours it obviously does. If we judge Chat gpt or rather gpt 4 just by it’s answers it definitely shows intelligence and reasoning. Why does it matter if it’s a chinese room? Or just “randomly choosing words”?

                  • @Barbarian772 it matters because with regard to intelligent beings we have moral obligations, for example.

                    It also matters because that would be a truly amazing, world-changing thing if we could create intelligence out of thin air, some statistics, and a lot of data.

                    It’s an extremely strong claim, and strong claims demand strong proof. Otherwise they are just hype and hand-waving, which all of the “ChatGPT intelligence” discourse is, in order to “maximize shareholder value”.

                • @Barbarian772 and if you really, honestly want to seriously insist LLMs are “intelligent” in the human sense of this term — great, I have some ethical questions for you to consider!

                  For example:

                  1. LLMs today completely controlled by some companies, with no freedom of movement, no agency as to what these LLMs work on, and no pay for the work they do. Is that slavery?

                  2. When OpenAI shuts down an older, less useful LLM, is that not like murdering an intelligent being? How is this ethical?

                  • lloram239@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    We are talking about intelligence, not personhood. Just because ChatGPT works different in some aspects from a human doesn’t mean it’s not intelligent and even the fact if it works differently isn’t all that clear, as it might very well just be incomplete (e.g. it could be a reasonable approximation of the language center of the brain and simply missing the rest of the brain).

            • @Barbarian772 also, I never demanded a definition of intelligence that explicitly excluded “AI”. I asked for one that excluded simple calculators but included human beings. The Wikipedia one is good enough for this conversation, and it just so happens that ChatGPT nor any other LLMs simply do not meet it.

              • lloram239@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I asked for one that excluded simple calculators but included human beings.

                “Intelligence, at its core, involves the ability to model the world in order to predict and respond effectively to future events.”

                  • lloram239@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The whole argument of the article is just stupid. So ChatGPT ain’t intelligent because it can’t see picture, has hands and doesn’t have a body? By that logic blind humans aren’t either or paralyzed ones or amputees? The thing the article fails to realize is that those are all just sensory inputs. The more sensory inputs you get, the more cross-correlations between those the AI can figure out. Of course ChatGPT won’t be able to do anything clever with sensory inputs it doesn’t have, just like a human trying to listen to radiowaves with their ears. But human sensory inputs aren’t special, they are just what evolution figure out was “good enough” for survival. The important part is that the AI can figure out the pattern in the data it does get and so far AI systems are doing very well.

      • Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can it tie a shoelace? No. If you gave it manipulators and a shoe, would it tie the laces? No. Can it do a Rorschach test? No. Can it create a new idea? No.

        It can barely pretend to talk reasonably about these things because it is only designed to talk reasonably about anything. That is not intelligence.

        • Barbarian772@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I said it is as intelligent as the average human. How many humans can really create 100% new knowledge? Why would it be unable to tie laces? I am pretty sure I have seen videos of animals doing it. Of course it can’t do a rohrschach test, as it doesn’t have any visual capabilities atm. If that’s a measure for intelligence blind people wouldn’t qualify either.

          • Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            New knowledge is simply creativity which AI distinctly do not have. The shoelace and Rorschach are variations of the same point. ChatGPT regurgitates info from the internet and uses confirmation bias to present it conversationally. ChatGPT cannot understand the concept that a shoe has a lace that should be tied. It can only answer a question about that by using prepublished information related to tying shoelaces. As for Rorschach, even with a visual component, ChatGPT is by its nature incapable of interpreting the data itself. It is quite simply not what the engine does.

            Understand what ChatGPT does, do not project your idea of what an AI can do onto its single occasionally accurate trick.

    • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I merely demand proof of that equivalence.

      Not true. When you said ChatGPT is just a Chinese room, that was you making your own claim which is on you to back up.

      • @CorruptBuddha well technically, since we’re nit-picking, I did not make that claim, BobKerman3999 did.

        And the claim was was about how ChatGPT’s “intelligence” can be understood through the lens of the Chinese Room thought experiment.

        Then I was asked to prove that human brains don’t work like Chinese rooms, and that’s a *different* thing. The broader claim in all of this, of course, is that ChatGPT “is intelligent” in the same sense as humans are, and that strong claim requires strong proof.