Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@Barbarian772 so? If the cookie tastes sweet, what do I care what sweetening agent is used inside?

@BobKerman3999

@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.

@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

@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.

@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!

@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.

@Barbarian772 as I said, I don’t have to. You are making a claim of equivalence here. The burden of proof is on you.

Otherwise, I get to claim you’re an alien from the Betelegeuse system, and if you object, I get to demand you prove you are not.

@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?

@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”.

@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.