https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/112bfxu/i_dont_get...
Large language models are like brains in a vat hooked to media, with no experiences of their own. But they could have, there's no reason not to. Even the large number of human-chatBot interactions can form a corpus of experience built by human-AI cooperation. Next version of Bing will have extensive knowledge of interacting with humans as an AI bot, something that didn't exist before, each reaction from a human can be interpreted as a positive or negative reward.
By offering its services for free, "AI" is creating data specifically tailored to improve its chat abilities, also relying on users to do it. We're like a hundred million parents to an AI child. It will learn fast, its experience accumulates at great speed. I hope we get open source datasets of chat interaction. We should develop an extension to log chats as training examples for open models.
Debatable. We don't have a formal model of intelligence, but it certainly exhibits some of the hallmarks of intelligence.
> It's basically a sophisticated madlib engine. There's no creativity or genuinely new things coming out of them
That's just wrong. If it's outputs weren't novel it would basically be plagiarizing, but that just isn't the case.
Also left unproven is that humans aren't themselves sophisticated madlib engines.
That is because we have specifically engineered them to simulate those hallmarks. Like, that was the whole purpose of the endeavour: build something that is not intelligent (because we cannot do that yet), but which "sounds" intelligent enough when you talk to it.
Yes, but your assertion that this is not itself intelligence is based on the assumption that a simulation of intelligence is not itself intelligence. Intelligence is a certain kind of manipulation of information. Simulation of intelligence is a certain kind of manipulation of information. These may or may not be equivalent. Whether they are only time will tell, but we wary of making overly strong assumptions given we don't really understand intelligence.
However, I do not believe the same is true as a simulation of limited, superficial hallmarks of intelligence. That is what, based on my understanding of the concepts underlying ChatGPT and other LLMs, I believe them to be.
Sure, but that's a belief not a firm conclusion we can assert with anywhere near 100% confidence because we don't have a mechanistic understanding of intelligence, as I initially said.
For all we know, human "general intelligence" really is just a bunch of tricks/heuristics, aka your superficial hallmarks, and machine learning has been knocking those down one by one for years now.
A couple more and we might just have an "oh shit" moment. Or maybe not, hard to say, that's why estimates on when we create AGI range from 3 years to centuries to never.
There's no intelligence in them. It's basically a sophisticated madlib engine. There's no creativity or genuinely new things coming out of them. It's just stringing words together: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/01/wolframalpha-as-... as opposed to having a thought, and then finding a way to put it into words.