"It doesn't lie, it just generates lies and printed them to the screen!"
I don't think there's a difference.
I don't think there's a difference.
Well, that is being doubted -- and by some of the biggest names in the field.
Namely that it isn't "statistically choosing words which probabilistically sound good together". But that doing so is not already making a consciousness (even if basic) emerge.
>it is statistically choosing words which probabilistically sound "good" together.
That when we do speak (or lie), we do something much more nuanced, and not just do a higher level equivalent of the same thing, plus have the emergent illusion of consciousness, is also an idea thrown around.
An appeal to authority is still a fallacy. We don't even have a way of proving if a person is experiencing consciousness, why would anyone expect we could agree if a machine is.
Which is neither here, nor there. I wasn't making a formal argument, I was stating a fact. Take it or leave it.
We don't have real things with all human attributes but we're getting closer and as we get close "needs to be a human" will get thinner as an explanation of what is or isn't human for an act of murder, deception and so-forth.
> to create a false or misleading impression
> Statistics sometimes lie.
> The mirror never lies.
You can reasonably say a database doesn't lie. It's just a tool, everyone agrees it's a tool and if you get the wrong answer, most people would agree it's your fault for making the wrong query or using the wrong data.
But the difference between ChatGPT and a database is ChatGPT will support it's assertions. It will say things that support it's position - not just fake references but an entire line of argument.
Of course, all of this is simply duplicating/simulating for humans in discussions. You can call it is a "simulated lie" if you don't like the idea of it really lying. But I claim that in normal usage, people will take this as "real" lying and ultimately that functional meaning is what "higher" more philosophical will have to accept.
This lawyer told it produce a defence story and it did just that.
What ChatGPT definitely does do is generate falsehoods. It's a bullshitting machine. Sometimes the bullshit produces true responses. But ChatGPT has no epistemological basis for knowing truths; it just is trained to say stuff.
The fact that people assume what it produces must always be real because it is sometimes real is not its fault. That lies with the people who uncritically accept what they are told.
That's partly true. Just as much fault lies with the people who market it as "intelligence" to those who uncritically accept what they are told.
ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts.