Jed, You continue to repeat things that are actually factually wrong. *It is not close to sentient.*
I made a pretty good argument why it can be close to sentient. What is your argument besides repeating this? * It is no closer to intelligence or sentience than a snail or an earthworm brain is.* This is actually wrong. 1) Previous versions of ChatGPT are not even close to what ChatGPT is actually capable of. This is why very few people talked about these versions and instead ChatGPT is creating so much buzz. It is really a quantum jump. I played myself with many versions of previous chatbots and this is the first time that I'm genuinely impressed. 2) While previous versions of ChatGPT (the different GPT versions) may have run on a laptop (not sure it is the case but it doesn't matter) this one definitely cannot run on a laptop. It requires a lot of servers because the computational requirements are very high. This is why you cannot download it, you use a web interface to access the servers. This is even more true for the training and feedback process. 3) I already told you that the degrees of freedom of this system are 10^12 parameters. My analogy with sinapses is actually pretty good because basically the nodes in a network and the synapses are doing similar things. One could argue that synapses are more complex than a node in a neural network but there is no evidence for that, if anything a node can take any value while a synapses is more an on and off switch. Unless you have an argument that is based on real facts about the system instead of a generic qualitative argument, my analogy stands so if one has to estimate the computational abilities of this system and compare it with a biological entity we are talking rat not a worm. This is not just a pedantic argument but something that can give us an understanding of how sophisticated these systems are and their potential for the future. For example, Kurzweil made a prediction that in 5-6 years from now we will reach the computational power of a human brain with only 1000 dollars of cost. We are very much moving along this predicted trajectory. When that is achieved I agree we could run a human equivalent brain in a laptop but that is a few years away from now. Giovanni On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 2:37 PM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is a reason why millions of people, journalists, politicians and us >> here in this email list are discussing this. >> The AI is going through a deep place in the uncanny valley. We are >> discussing all this because it starts to show behavior that is very close >> to what we consider not just sentient, but human. >> > > It is not close to sentient. It is no closer to intelligence or sentience > than a snail or an earthworm brain is. I mean that literally. People have > run previous versions of this program on laptop computers, which -- as one > AI expert put it -- have about as much actual intelligence as an earthworm. > Other forms of AI are somewhat intelligent, but this method is not. It may > look sentient to some people, but that is a delusion. This is art, not > life. It is a clever simulacrum, like an antique wind-up doll. > > This is no more sentient than the characters in an animated cartoon. You > can make an animated cartoon that evokes feelings of sympathy, emotion, > pathos or humor in a person watching it, but it is entirely fiction. The > drawings and computer generated images in the cartoon have absolutely no > emotions, feelings, intelligence, any more than an oil painting by Goya > does. Canvas and dry pigments have no emotions. > > Sometime in the distant future an intelligent, sentient AI may appear. If > that happens, perhaps we should be concerned about its feelings. Although I > doubt it will have any feelings. ChatGPT has no feelings any more than a > dishwasher, a pickaxe, or a desktop computer does, so there is nothing to > be concerned about. > > I will grant that playing cruel video games in which you shoot people, or > steal automobiles, or rape people may be bad for the person playing the > game. But it does not harm the transistor and hard disk that execute the > program. Projecting actual images of WWII battles does not harm the movie > projector, or frighten it. Printing vile pornography on paper does not hurt > the paper or the printing press. > > - Jed > >
