• Barbarian772@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      How can i proof it? In my opinion how a system comes to an answer doesn’t matter, in yours it obviously does. If we judge Chat gpt or rather gpt 4 just by it’s answers it definitely shows intelligence and reasoning. Why does it matter if it’s a chinese room? Or just “randomly choosing words”?

      • @Barbarian772 it matters because with regard to intelligent beings we have moral obligations, for example.

        It also matters because that would be a truly amazing, world-changing thing if we could create intelligence out of thin air, some statistics, and a lot of data.

        It’s an extremely strong claim, and strong claims demand strong proof. Otherwise they are just hype and hand-waving, which all of the “ChatGPT intelligence” discourse is, in order to “maximize shareholder value”.

        • Barbarian772@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          So your morality depends on a beings intelligence? That’s kinda fucked up imo. I have moral obligations in regards to living organisms. I don’t see how intelligence matters at all in that case? Worth of any human life should not be determined by intelligence.

        • jorge@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It also matters because that would be a truly amazing, world-changing thing if we could create intelligence out of thin air, some statistics, and a lot of data.

          We do it routinely. It is called Education System.

          • @jalda

            > We do it routinely. It is called Education System.

            That relies on human brains that are trained. LLMs are not human brains. “Training” them is not the same thing as teaching humans about something. Human brains are way more complicated than just a bunch of weighed correlations.

            And if you do want to claim it is in fact the same thing, we’re back to square one: please provide proof that it is.

            • jorge@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That relies on human brains that are trained. LLMs are not human brains. “Training” them is not the same thing as teaching humans about something.

              Circular reasoning. “LLMs are different from human brains because they are different”.

              Also, why did you felt compelled to add the adjective “human”? Don’t you consider that gorillas, dolphins, octopuses or dogs are intelligent, capable of learn new things?

              Human brains are way more complicated than just a bunch of weighed correlations.

              And that is the problem of your argument. You seem to believe that intelligence is all-or-nothing, that anything that hasn’t a human-level intelligence is not intelligent at all. Of course human brains are more complicated that current LLMs, nobody has ever disputed that. But concluding that they aren’t and will never be intelligent because they aren’t as complicated is a huge non-sequitur.

    • @Barbarian772 and if you really, honestly want to seriously insist LLMs are “intelligent” in the human sense of this term — great, I have some ethical questions for you to consider!

      For example:

      1. LLMs today completely controlled by some companies, with no freedom of movement, no agency as to what these LLMs work on, and no pay for the work they do. Is that slavery?

      2. When OpenAI shuts down an older, less useful LLM, is that not like murdering an intelligent being? How is this ethical?

      • lloram239@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We are talking about intelligence, not personhood. Just because ChatGPT works different in some aspects from a human doesn’t mean it’s not intelligent and even the fact if it works differently isn’t all that clear, as it might very well just be incomplete (e.g. it could be a reasonable approximation of the language center of the brain and simply missing the rest of the brain).