4 ms·

> it has no actual intelligence This is a prime example of the moving goalpost of what intelligence "actually" is - in previous eras, we would undoubtedly cons

> it has no actual intelligence This is a prime example of the moving goalpost of what intelligence "actually" is - in previous eras, we would undoubtedly consider understanding context, putting together syntactically correct sentences and extracting the essence from texts as "intelligent"

vinkelhake 4y ago
Whether this thing is worthy of the label of "intelligent" or not is fairly uninteresting. What matters for something like this is its accuracy and if it can be trusted - that is what I think OP is getting at.
- FeepingCreature 4y ago
  I mean, I feel then OP shouldn't say something contentious like that.
luckylion 4y ago
Does it do all that, or does it just pretend to understand context and extract the essence from texts? It looks as if it does because it follows the form you'd expect an answer to have if the person is intelligent. But when you look more closely, it often falls apart. It reminds me of people who use "big words" without actually understanding them. If they don't overdo it or really miss the meaning of a term, they can seem much more educated than they are.
JasonFruit 4y ago
Have you ever read "A Canticle for Leibowitz"? A peripheral bit in the story has a monk develop a mathematical system to determine what word would come next in a manuscript whose edge has been lost. Walter M. Miller, writing that story in 1959, does not portray such a system as having or being perceived to have "actual intelligence", because he can easily imagine that a complex system could appear to work in that way without intelligence. The goalpost was never in that spot.
SrslyJosh 4y ago
> understanding context You're asserting here that it understands context, but you haven't provided any argument in support of that assertion. I think you'll also need to define what you mean by "understanding" (because that term is loaded with anthropocentric connotations) and clearly state what "context" you think the model has.

vinkelhake 4y ago

Whether this thing is worthy of the label of "intelligent" or not is fairly uninteresting. What matters for something like this is its accuracy and if it can be trusted - that is what I think OP is getting at.

FeepingCreature 4y ago
I mean, I feel then OP shouldn't say something contentious like that.

luckylion 4y ago

Does it do all that, or does it just pretend to understand context and extract the essence from texts? It looks as if it does because it follows the form you'd expect an answer to have if the person is intelligent. But when you look more closely, it often falls apart. It reminds me of people who use "big words" without actually understanding them. If they don't overdo it or really miss the meaning of a term, they can seem much more educated than they are.

JasonFruit 4y ago

Have you ever read "A Canticle for Leibowitz"? A peripheral bit in the story has a monk develop a mathematical system to determine what word would come next in a manuscript whose edge has been lost. Walter M. Miller, writing that story in 1959, does not portray such a system as having or being perceived to have "actual intelligence", because he can easily imagine that a complex system could appear to work in that way without intelligence. The goalpost was never in that spot.

SrslyJosh 4y ago

> understanding context You're asserting here that it understands context, but you haven't provided any argument in support of that assertion. I think you'll also need to define what you mean by "understanding" (because that term is loaded with anthropocentric connotations) and clearly state what "context" you think the model has.