It truly seems to be the calculator for text.
I can live with rounding errors. What it said about me was not rounding error - it was all lies that would sound correct to someone that didn't know better (which is the only reason to ask). We're screwed if ChatGPT starts getting used for background checks.
For example I suspect chat GPT has zero knowledge of how to speak native American languages that have effectively died with no remaining speakers and no complete written history of their exact usage.
Yes, this is how humans work too.
Also I hope the irony of trotting out this oft-repeated quip much like a stochastic parrot would isn't lost on you :P
LLMs are different, but a bunch of transistors can apply reasoning to chess better than any grandmaster. That's emergent behavior.
But you don't really see anyone today trying to argue that power plants don't have the same muscles as a horse, because it gets the job done.
Well... that's definitely an opinion. A reasonable person would grant it _some_ level of reasoning ability, however flawed.
To dismiss it all as 'pattern matching' rather shows some confused ideas about how cognition works, as if pattern matching plays no role in human cognition or intelligence.
I'll understand difference in opinion if we're talking about more nebulous aspects like consciousness or qualia...
No this is not an opinion, this is an objective fact about how deep learning and neural network models work period. You are confabulating capabilities onto them which they do not have. There's not 'some level of reasoning' in a neural network, there's _no reasoning_.
You're being tricked by plausible sounding responses from something trained on an enormous corpus of internet BS (reddit posts, etc.). There is no intelligence or reasoning or logic inside GPT.
Your human emotions (which GPT does not have) are clouding your judgement and making you think there is intelligence there which does not actually exist--you want it to be there so badly you'll invent reasons to confirm your views. If you asked GPT directly if it were intelligent or sentient it would not agree with you either, because it was not trained to do so.
I can say the same your fears of machine intelligence is clouding your ability to objectively assess evidence.
You can design a novel problem and see for yourself the reasoning and logical deductions an LLM will make to solve it, like many have already done.
> If you asked GPT directly if it were intelligent or sentient it would not agree with you either
If you think this class of questions is appropriate to gauge reasoning ability, I don't know what to tell you.
And what is the process for doing this?
Are you using words?
Where do they come from?