Re:GPT-4 performs better at Theory of Mind tests than actual...
by og_kalu on Sunday April 30, 2023 @09:02PM
(#35768038)
Guess we'll just disagree.
If it's not distinguishable then there's no difference period. Of course that won't stop people from making up differences.
An argument stemming from "well humans could have this special sauce that machines can't have...just because", is not something to take seriously.
Re:GPT-4 performs better at Theory of Mind tests than actual...
by tosh on Monday May 01, 2023 @10:21AM
(#35773152)
If something is indistinguishable to something else it practically means the two things are substitable (?).
It does not mean they are (or work) the same way.
Re:GPT-4 performs better at Theory of Mind tests than actual...
by yladiz on Monday May 01, 2023 @02:56PM
(#35777418)
Yeah, so then it depends on what determines if the first is indistinguishable from the second. Is this a Blade Runner situation, or something different?
Re:GPT-4 performs better at Theory of Mind tests than actual...
by bheadmaster on Monday May 01, 2023 @01:47PM
(#35776487)
> If it's not distinguishable then there's no difference period.
That's true only if you believe that the world only exists inside humans' minds.
If you believe in objective reality, then things that are different but not distinguishable by humans can exist.
I agree with everything else you said, but this is a point I disagree with.
Just because something isn't testable, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Theoretically, the state of facts could be such that 1) human minds can think (as in, have consciousness and perform the process that is known to us as "human thinking") and 2) machines cannot think (as in, they don't have consciousness, but are literally just mechanisms that appear to provide same output as humans for a certain set of inputs).
I don't think it's true, in fact, I don't think consciousness itself is anything more than a convenient illusion, but I still must point out that "what is real must be measurable" is not a valid argument.
A more precise formulation might be "if thinking can be fake, the only way we can prove it is if it's testable - otherwise it doesn't make sense to discuss it".