> it has 0 cognition

This seems to be the number one problem with lay understanding of ML masquerading as AGI. People immediately jump to the conclusion that the computer can think. Not yet, not even close.

Edit: Switching AI to AGI to avoid any confusion.

I’m not sure if I can think, despite having a PhD in EECS. We humans prize our ability to think very highly but it’s a nebulous concept. I believe these models will get much better at simulating “thinking” in the next few years, and we soon won’t be able to say the model isn’t thinking, we’ll move on to criticizing the quality of its responses the way we criticize other bad ideas.

The point of the Turing test, to me, was that if a process responds in a logical way, you can’t really tell whether it is thinking or computing - and it doesn’t matter.

Yep. The same argument was put forward against chess engines - that they didn't really play chess! All they did was search all possibilities and spat out the "best" outcome based on some scoring system.

And yet, these engines have beaten the best humans.

The forms underneath intelligence, or thinking, doesn't matter. The outcome is what matters.

That's not what AI means. You're talking about AGI.

AI is a field that covers all kinds of highly limited intelligences, including bad guys in a video game walking back and forth indefinitely.

The Cliff comparison is a good one in that it very confident declares its every answer was though it is well-founded fact.

Little known fact, Wheels, most of these "AIs" are really just hallucination machines with a lot of cross-referencing. Most of their inputs were Philip K. Dick, the artwork of J.K. Potter, and Duran Duran lyrics.

> It's a super charged Cliff Clavin

How well would ChatGPT perform if it played the final round of Jeopardy?