Comment by Barbarian772@feddit.de on ChatGPT broke the Turing test — the race is on for new ways to assess AI

No? But how can you even prove that our brain works differently than a chinese room?

@Barbarian772 I don’t have to. It’s the ChatGPT people making extremely strong claims about equivalence of ChatGPT and human intelligence. I merely demand proof of that equivalence. Which they are unable to provide, and instead use rhetoric and parlor tricks and a lot of hand waving to divert and distract from that fact.

GPT 4 is already more intelligent than the average human. Is it more intelligent than the most intelligent human? No, but most humans aren’t either. Can it create new knowledge? No, but the average human can’t either.

How can you say it isn’t intelligent?

@Barbarian772 no, GTP is not more “intelligent” than any human being, just like a calculator is not more “intelligent” than any human being — even if it can perform certain specific operations faster.

Since you used the term “intelligent” though, I would ask for your definition of what it means? Ideally one that excludes calculators but includes human beings. Without such clear definition, this is, again, just hand-waving.

I wrote about it in a bit longer form:
https://rys.io/en/165.html

I think the Wikipedia definition is fine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence. Excluding AI just because it’s AI is imo plain stupid and goes against all scientific principles.

I have definitely met humans that are less intelligent that Chat GPT. It can hold a conversation and ace every standardized test we have. It finished law exams, medical exams and other exams from many different countries with a passing grade.

Can you give me a definition of intelligence that excludes Chat GPT and includes all human beings? And no just excluding Computers for the sake of it doesn’t count.

@Barbarian772 it was shown over and over and over again that ChatGPT lacks the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, reasoning, planning, critical thinking, and problem-solving.

That’s partially because it does not have a model of the world, an ontology, it cannot *reason*. It just regurgitates text, probabilistically.

So, glad we established that!

As i said before. How can you prove to me that the human brain doesn’t essentially do the same?

@Barbarian772 also, I never demanded a definition of intelligence that explicitly excluded “AI”. I asked for one that excluded simple calculators but included human beings. The Wikipedia one is good enough for this conversation, and it just so happens that ChatGPT nor any other LLMs simply do not meet it.

Can it tie a shoelace? No. If you gave it manipulators and a shoe, would it tie the laces? No. Can it do a Rorschach test? No. Can it create a new idea? No.

It can barely pretend to talk reasonably about these things because it is only designed to talk reasonably about anything. That is not intelligence.

I said it is as intelligent as the average human. How many humans can really create 100% new knowledge? Why would it be unable to tie laces? I am pretty sure I have seen videos of animals doing it. Of course it can’t do a rohrschach test, as it doesn’t have any visual capabilities atm. If that’s a measure for intelligence blind people wouldn’t qualify either.

New knowledge is simply creativity which AI distinctly do not have. The shoelace and Rorschach are variations of the same point. ChatGPT regurgitates info from the internet and uses confirmation bias to present it conversationally. ChatGPT cannot understand the concept that a shoe has a lace that should be tied. It can only answer a question about that by using prepublished information related to tying shoelaces. As for Rorschach, even with a visual component, ChatGPT is by its nature incapable of interpreting the data itself. It is quite simply not what the engine does.

Understand what ChatGPT does, do not project your idea of what an AI can do onto its single occasionally accurate trick.

I merely demand proof of that equivalence.

Not true. When you said ChatGPT is just a Chinese room, that was you making your own claim which is on you to back up.

@CorruptBuddha well technically, since we’re nit-picking, I did not make that claim, BobKerman3999 did.

And the claim was was about how ChatGPT’s “intelligence” can be understood through the lens of the Chinese Room thought experiment.

Then I was asked to prove that human brains don’t work like Chinese rooms, and that’s a *different* thing. The broader claim in all of this, of course, is that ChatGPT “is intelligent” in the same sense as humans are, and that strong claim requires strong proof.

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

ChatGPT broke the Turing test — the race is on for new ways to assess AI(www.nature.com)

Technology

!technology@beehaw.org

Community stats

Community moderators