> If the litmus test for intelligence
Moving goal posts around is unhelpful. I think my comment was pretty clear in the context of AGI and calling ChatGPT a "math genius."
Moving goal posts around is unhelpful. I think my comment was pretty clear in the context of AGI and calling ChatGPT a "math genius."
In reality, the goal posts aren’t being moved, we’re just finding out how much further we are from them than we thought. ChatGPT is a "stochastic parrot" that’s seems way “smarter” than anyone thought possible so we have to reevaluate what we consider evidence of intelligence, perhaps coming to terms with the fact that we aren’t that smart the most of the time.
The "We'll see it when it comes" line is just utterly wrong, If there's one thing experts seem to agree on is that not everyone will agree when current definition of agi does arrive.
The philosophical zombie is an excellent example of the extent of post shifting we're capable of. Even when a theoretical system that does every single thing right comes, we're looking for a way to discredit it. To put it below what we of course only have.
lots of researchers now aren't questioning GPT's general intelligence. That's how you end up with papers alluding to this technology with amusing names like General purpose technologies(from the jobs paper) or even funnier - General artificial intelligence (from the creativity paper).
You know what the original title of the microsoft paper was? "First contact with an agi system". and maybe it's just me but reading it, i got the sense they thought it too.
I was with you until here. That has nothing to do with this. That argument is about separating intelligence from having a subjective experience, not moving goalposts for intelligence.
I brought it up because i thought it fit the point i was driving at. Humans/people don't see subjective experience. I don't know that you're actually having some subjective experience. I'm working on what i see and results, same as you.
If you have two unknown equations but one condition - these 2 equations return the same output with the same input. well, then any mathematician would tell you the obvious - the 2 equations are equal or equivalent. it doesn't actually matter what they look like.
This is just an illustration. The point i'm driving at here is that true distinction shows in results. It's a concept that's pretty easy to understand. Yet turn to artificial intelligence and it just seems to break down. People making weird assertions all over the place not because they have been warranted in any empirical, qualitative or quantitative manner but because there seems to be this inability to engage with results...like we do with each other.
when i show the output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand, the arguments quickly shift to "it's not real understanding!" and it's honestly very bizarre. What kind of meaningful distinction can't show itself, can't be tested for ? If it does exist then it's not meaningful.
I think that the same reason people shift posts for intelligence is the same reason people fear the philosophical zombie.
idk maybe i'm rambling at this point but just my thoughts.
I agree with you totally. Here's some output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understanding:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Explain that!
I'm Just surprised honestly. All of the straw man arguments, this is the best you can come up with?
Man do better. GPT-4 would have a better response than this.
Are you really just going to cop out and avoid engaging seriously with my question? How do you explain the output above except as reasoning and understanding?
og_kalu, I understand the point you're trying to make regarding the potential intelligence of GPT-4 and the connection with the philosophical zombie, but I believe there are some important distinctions to consider.
First, it's important to recognize that the goalposts for artificial intelligence have indeed been shifting, and for good reason. As our understanding of intelligence grows, so does our ability to build systems that can mimic it. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that a given AI system, like GPT-4, has truly achieved general intelligence. Instead, it might simply be that our models are becoming more sophisticated and better at solving specific tasks.
The philosophical zombie argument, on the other hand, is concerned with subjective experience and consciousness, rather than intelligence. A philosophical zombie is a hypothetical being that is behaviorally and functionally identical to a human being, but lacks subjective experience. The debate around the philosophical zombie is more about the nature of consciousness and whether it can be separated from intelligence, rather than the intelligence itself.
Now, regarding your assertion that true distinction shows in results, it's true that GPT-4 and similar models have shown impressive capabilities. However, it's crucial not to confuse correlation with causation. Just because an AI system can generate outputs that seem to demonstrate reasoning and understanding, it doesn't necessarily mean that it possesses true understanding. It might simply have learned to generate outputs that are highly correlated with human-generated responses, without any actual understanding or reasoning taking place.
In summary, while it's true that AI systems like GPT-4 are becoming more advanced and able to generate seemingly intelligent responses, it's important to differentiate between the appearance of intelligence and genuine understanding. Furthermore, the philosophical zombie argument is primarily concerned with consciousness, not intelligence, so it may not be entirely relevant in this context.
I think that's because you have no idea how to explain why something is, or isn't understanding, or reasoning.
In your comment above you accuse people of not being able to tell you clearly why GPT-4 is not reasoning or understanding, but you, yourself, can't even say clearly why copy/paste isn't. You have no clue how to do that. If you can't even say why something isn't reasoning, or understanding, then how can you say that something is? Do you even know what you're talking about, when you're talking about "reasoning" and "understanding"?
I find it very difficult to believe at this point that you are arguing in good faith.
Your COPY-PASTE example is nonsensical as already pointed out.
Do you also think that a printing press (or a rubber-stamp for that matter) demonstrates reasoning?
But will you explain why it is nonsensical? Because that has not yet been pointed out.
Lest you forget, here is what the OP said that I replied to:
>> when i show the output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand, the arguments quickly shift to "it's not real understanding!" and it's honestly very bizarre.
I also showed "output" that "clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand[ing]". Why is that nonsensical?
Edit: although it won't be very helpful to discuss this if you're not the OP and don't make the same assumptions as they. But go ahead anyway.
I don't think this is a goalpost shift at all. I agree that GPT actually is "generally intelligent" but then so is Google Search. The point of the term AGI is that it has generally applicable intelligence that is on par with a human, I don't think that's really changed.
The problem with GPT is still that every single interaction I've had with it, I've pointed out issues with its logic and it is incapable of understanding my objection. It agrees with whatever I say and then immediately repeats the same mistake. And these aren't "invent new math" questions, there's a very clear inability to follow a logical chain of cause and effect.
I should be clear at the same time I still have a feeling ChatGPT might be conscious. It's obviously kind of a dreamlike consciousness without ability to hold state but it does feel like it could be conscious.
Which human or humans?
I freely admit that I do not posses the intelligence to "invent new math" but I am pretty sure that I am "smarter than the average bear" (to borrow a phrase).
Interesting q for us to consider is how do we come up with "new ideas". I think we can consider play (in the abstract sense) to be a significant element of the process. Play is a pleasurable self-motivated activity.
I am certain an AGI (if such a thing exists) will need to be playful.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Grasshopper-Third-Games-Life-Utopia/d...