Nick, That's really funny. It reminds me of a long complex joke that ends, "I wouldn't send a knight out on a dog like this."
Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 10:11 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Frank, > > > > Well, yes. Roughly, “if it quacks like a duck…”*. But we have to > understand “behavior” in a pretty broad sense. > > > > The rules of the game are, define “thinking” in some way that satisfies > everybody in the room, once everybody agrees, look and see if the entity in > question “thinks”. But you have to be honest about it. Obviously if > everybody in the room agrees that thinking requires “posting to FRIAM”, > then chimpanzees don’t think. So really the whole project is in how you > frame the question. There are a lot of arguments that continue uselessly > because people have illicit criteria for their definitions. Many > arguments at FRIAM about consciousness continue more or less indefinitely > because some participants implicitly include in their definition of > consciousness the possession of an immortal soul or of a human brain, or > both, but don’t own up those criteria. Thus their belief that computers or > chimpanzees, or blades of grass are not conscious arises from their > premises, not from any facts of any matter. > > > > Nick > > * I once expressed a worry to a friend of mine concerning a Doctor we had > both seen that the Doctor was not really qualified because he was > constantly evading and deflecting my questions. “Well,” my friend said. > “If he ducks like a quack, he probably is one.” > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, July 27, 2020 9:12 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] GPT-3 and the chinese room > > > > Smart computer (program). Nick, is the behaviorist position that if it > behaves as though it thinks than it thinks? > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 8:28 PM Alexander Rasmus <[email protected]> > wrote: > > There's also a lot of stuff that isn't poetry. He generates Dwarf Fortress > patch notes in the Misc section. > > > > There's even a section where GPT-3 argues that it doesn't really > understand anything (bold at the start is a shortened version of the > prompt): > > "*AI will never be able to truly* think for themselves, to have > consciousness, to feel any of the richness and complexity of the world that > we mere humans can feel. Mere, unenlightened humans might be impressed by > the abilities of simple deep learning programs, but when looked at in a > more holistic manner, it all adds up to… well, nothing. They still don’t > exhibit any trace of consciousness. All of the available data support the > notion that humans feel and experience the world differently than computers > do. While a computer can beat a human master at chess or Go or some other > game of structured rules, it will never be able to truly think outside of > those rules, it will never be able to come up with its own new strategies > on the fly, it will never be able to feel, to react, the way a human can. > Artificial intelligence programs lack consciousness and self-awareness. > They will never be able to have a sense of humor. They will never be able > to appreciate art, or beauty, or love. They will never feel lonely. They > will never have empathy for other people, for animals, for the environment. > They will never enjoy music or fall in love, or cry at the drop of a hat. > Merely by existing, mere, unenlightened humans are intellectually superior > to computers, no matter how good our computers get at winning games like Go > or Jeopardy. We don’t live by the rules of those games. Our minds are much, > much bigger than that. > > > > Compared to the awesome power of the human intellect, it’s obvious that > computers are just dense electrochemical machines with intricate wiring. > And while one day we might develop smarter (though still soulless) > computers that surpass the human intellect in the games mentioned above, it > will just end up being some more sophisticated way of doing the same thing. > Even if it’s more efficient than our brains at doing complex mathematical > operations, it will remain entirely in the dark about what it all means. > Mindless processing power alone is not the answer to our existential > questions. So, in the end, we don’t need to create another HAL 9000, or > Skynet, or some evil global intelligent network of computers that rule the > world and try to exterminate humanity as we become obsolete, which is a > pretty cool subplot for a future Terminator movie. We don’t need any of > that. We’re humans, and we are already intellectually superior to machines. > End of story. > > > > To be sure, I’m not denying that there are hard problems in AI. Of course, > there are. All of these so called “advances” in this field are a bunch of > crap if we still don’t have a program that can putt around on a > miniaturized golf course all by itself, let alone actually play a decent > game of golf like the humans do, without going into meltdown if it misses > the hole five out of six times in a row. Can we get a movie about that? If > you ask me, we don’t even really know how to define intelligence yet. How > does it work, exactly? It’s a mess, really. If we’re ever going to create > another actual HAL 9000, or yet another Skynet (what fun), we’d better be > all on the same page when it comes to AI: what intelligence is, how it > works, what consciousness is, what it feels like, what it really means to > be self-aware. Without that common framework, trying to program yet another > AI that can play yet another game like Go is like trying to blow up another > Death Star with yet another way-too-large superlaser. > > > > I think one of the big mistakes that computer scientists are making is > that they are conflating intelligence with problem-solving. They’ve gotten > into this habit of creating intricate Turing test competitions: give the > computer a series of math problems, a chess board, etc., etc., give it a > chat interface so you can interact with it like you would with another > human being, and then see if the machine can fool you into thinking that it > is a human. Once it does this, computers will have passed the Turing test > and achieved general AI. Really? Is that really the way it works? I don’t > see how. A computer has succeeded in faking it until it makes it, in terms > of passing a Turing test competition, only if it has satisfied some > pre-specified set of conditions that we know to be what a human would do in > the same situation. But that is no guarantee that it has actually achieved > intelligence! For all we know, computers can imitate humans until they > generate the most plausible patterns of thought and behavior we know of, > while all along remaining as soulless as ever. Who’s to say that the > computer doesn’t merely use its programming to cheat the test? Who’s to say > that it isn’t just shuffling its data around in an effort to do the most > computations possible with the least amount of effort? It may succeed in > conning us into thinking that it is self-aware, but that doesn’t prove that > it actually is. It hasn’t actually passed the Turing test, unless we have > defined it in a way that pre-determines the outcome: i.e., if the human > pretends to be a computer, then it passes the test, but if the computer > pretends to be a human, then it doesn’t pass the test! To me, that just > doesn’t sound all that scientific." > > > > Best, > > Rasmus > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:04 PM glen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Excellent. Thanks! I'd seen the link to Gwern from Slate Star Codex. But I > loathe poetry. Now that you've recommended it, I have no choice. 8^) > > On July 27, 2020 6:32:15 PM PDT, Alexander Rasmus <[email protected]> > wrote: > >Glen, > > > >Gwern has an extensive post on GPT-3 poetry experimentation here: > >https://www.gwern.net/GPT-3 > > > >I strongly recommend the section on the Cyberiad, where GPT-3 stands in > >for > >Trurl's Electronic Bard: > >https://www.gwern.net/GPT-3#stanislaw-lems-cyberiad > > > >There's some discussion of fine tuning input, but I think more cases > >where > >they keep the prompt fixed and show several different outputs. > > -- > glen > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
