Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”

Re:Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first” by lelanthran on Thursday February 16, 2023 @12:04AM (#34815278)

> I’m just trying to “prove” that it isn’t just randomly statistically choosing the next logical word. It has to know context and have some level of “understanding” of other contexts.

FCOL, you can't use "complex output" as proof that the process has any intelligence directing it.

If you could, we would take the Intelligent Design argument seriously. We don't. We never did. We need a good clear argument to convince us now why it is a good idea to accept Intelligent Design as an argument.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first” by naasking on Thursday February 16, 2023 @12:58AM (#34815595)

It's not just complex output, it's output that's relevant to the prompt including considerable nuance. If that's not bordering on intelligence, then you shouldn't consider humans intelligent either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first” by lelanthran on Thursday February 16, 2023 @03:37AM (#34816422)

> it's output that's relevant to the prompt including considerable nuance.

You can say the same thing about Intelligent Design, and yet we dismiss it anyway.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first” by naasking on Thursday February 16, 2023 @08:03AM (#34818127)

We didn't dismiss intelligent design, we replaced it with a more parsimonious theory that better explained the evidence. Big difference.

[ Parent | on HN ]