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

Re:Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first” by danaris on Thursday February 16, 2023 @03:42PM (#34825730)

I think you may be right that a simulation of intelligence—in full—either is intelligence, or is so indistinguishable it becomes a purely philosophical question.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first” by naasking on Thursday February 16, 2023 @03:59PM (#34826030)

> However, I do not believe the same is true as a simulation of limited, superficial hallmarks of intelligence

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]