Conversation

Notices

Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 27-Jul-2023 00:24:30 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

@Suiseiseki it was a shitpost, but I do not think machine learning is really "intelligence" in the same way that we tend to mean when we use the word to describe human behavior. It's similar in some ways, and I understand why we call it intelligence, but I think intelligence requires some kind of understanding which isn't really something easy to test for or even articulate.

The LLMs seem intelligent to people because their output resembles human speech. This is a very low bar.

In conversation Thursday, 27-Jul-2023 00:24:30 JST from shitposter.club permalink
- ren (renai@cawfee.club)'s status on Thursday, 27-Jul-2023 01:12:00 JST ren
  in reply to
  
  @thatguyoverthere @Suiseiseki >I think intelligence requires some kind of understanding which isn't really something easy to test for or even articulate.
  
  perhaps you'd like this thought experiment! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
  In conversation Thursday, 27-Jul-2023 01:12:00 JST permalink
  Attachments
  1. Chinese room
    
    The Chinese Room Argument holds that a digital computer executing a program cannot have a "mind", "understanding", or "consciousness", regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. The argument was presented by philosopher John Searle in his paper, "Minds, Brains, and Programs", published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in 1980. Similar arguments were presented by Gottfried Leibniz (1714), Anatoly Dneprov (1961), Lawrence Davis (1974) and Ned Block (1978). Searle's version has been widely discussed in the years since. The centerpiece of Searle's argument is a thought experiment known as the Chinese Room.The argument is directed against the philosophical positions of functionalism and computationalism, which hold that the mind may be viewed as an information-processing system operating on formal symbols, and that simulation of a given mental state is sufficient for its presence. Specifically, the argument is intended to refute a position Searle calls strong AI: "The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense...
  Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
- Niclas Hedhman (niclas@angrytoday.com)'s status on Thursday, 27-Jul-2023 01:12:08 JST Niclas Hedhman
  in reply to
  
  @thatguyoverthere
  It quickly becomes philosophical, and if the brain is more than a machine (i.e. theoretically reproducible with algorithms), then what is that? And how do we prove that "that" exists?
  @Suiseiseki
  
  In conversation Thursday, 27-Jul-2023 01:12:08 JST permalink
  
  Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.