That seems just a matter of time until they would be doing this rightly so.
Then some time later as we figure out how consciousness works in the computer - as it is much easier to inspect than a human - and compare the findings with humans to see if they indeed work in a similar way, we will all be a bit disappointed that the solution is much more mundane than we thought or hoped.
How do you know that? To be clear, I totally agree that ChatGPT is not yet there and I also think that scaling it up will not get us there, but I think the gap might be much smaller than most people think.
The way we think is often divided into two categories, for simple things like 1 + 1 you just know the answer, for complicated things things like 13 * 47 we really have to think and reason in steps. ChatGPT seems to do pretty well in the first category but it is not really capable of doing things in the second category. On the other hand I have seen examples of people talking ChatGPT through a reasoning process to arrive at the correct answer for something that it got initially wrong, for example ROT13 encoding some text.
So what if we stuff two copies of ChatGPT into a black box and instead of just spitting out what ever ChatGPT spits out, we let the two copies have some inner dialog? I don't think it is perfectly obvious how one would do this or what the result would be, but I think ChatGPT has enough basic knowledge that there is at least a chance that one could get it to reason in a step by step fashion.
But that also doesn't imply we should suspect any particular AI of being conscious just because AI in general could be conscious in principle. We don't expect worms to be conscious just because animals can be.
Now I'm not sure it matters. If people imbue their devices with intelligence and emotions then that's what they perceive. I've since learned about Tulpas. Some people have imaginary friends that seem very real to them. People will likely move their Tulpas out of their minds and into their AI's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa
People on reddit are already talking about Tulpa's and AI
but 'written explanations' only really work for done and completed things, or sometimes for future things which we want to repeat; i.e. which are based on things we've done before
I think that is a core part of the difficulty coming up in these discussions.
I hope you realize how silly that sounds.
No, I'm sure it looks like an airplane is flying and being onboard gives the right sensation but until we solve the hard problem of turbulent flows we really don't know if it's flying or not.
yea, let's leave this job to evil and ignorant humans...
https://www.perplexity.ai/ already did this and its really good and not this dystopian thing you luddites keep imagining.
It's not really clear to me if this article is directed at scientists and engineers getting carried away or the general public. If the former, yes they should know better, but the general public is mostly not rational, contrary to what I used to think about the reasoning person. Many people attribute thoughts and feeling to their pets that they don't have. They think crystals have special powers. It's only natural that they will think AI have consciousness. I think as scientists and engineers we have a responsibility to prevent our AI creations from telling people to drink the poisoned Kool Aid or eat glass. Yann LeCun said they shut down Meta's chat AI because it told people that suicide had advantages and one can eat glass. Google is similarly cautious. OpenAI came along and let the cat out of the bag. I wonder if Microsoft has thought through what might happen if they hook it to Bing and it starts telling people crazy things. All it took was a couple of posts on 4chan to get the Q Anon movement off the ground.