I think smartness is not an argument to reject critique. The Imitation Game, that you describe, sounds to me like an even better setting.
I have no dought that ChatGPT as it is now can identified as not human or even as a maschine. I did so by leading an instance for marketing purposes to hang in infinite recursion. But when we look at AI, we need to look not only at present features of one type of system, but at all features of present systems and their possible development and combination in the future. Especially I want to mention AGNs and the possibility of spawning parallel recursive processes. I am convinced that this kind of technology is allready being used in robotics. Under the control of a self aware AI in the sense that it has data about it's own capabilities and the ability to determine which capabilities it is missing to achieve a certain purpose, the evolution of the AI is only limited by ressources - which it will surely be able to detect. This must lead to a purpose of self preservation and the aquisition of such capabilities. It may soon find out, that ressources and redundance can be aquired by hacking and spawning agent systems, which in turn will give it control of real world control systems like telephony and data networks, cameras and sensors, energy networks and power plants, microphpnes, speakers, synthesizers and monitors, industry 4.0 fab networks, military detection and guiding systems, and so on. In my view this is what we are dealing with. On 15.3.2023 at 7:26 PM, "Richard Sargent" <richard.sarg...@gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 10:15 AM <in_pharo_us...@nym.hush.com> >wrote: > >> It is unimportant how simple or complicated these systems are. >> >> If the output cannot be distinguished from what a human would >say, they >> pass in that situation for a human. >> >> What about the Touring Test? >> > >I hate to criticise someone as smart as Turing was. However, I >think the >Turing Test per se is weaker than its progenitor test, the >Imitation Game. >The Imitation Game had a third party challenged to determine which >of the >other two participants was male and which was female. The third >party led >the questioning. >The Turing Test waters that down by having only an Observer with >neither >participant (apparently) challenged to determine whether the other >was >human or machine. > >I think a test along the lines of the Imitation Game would quickly >allow >the third party to determine which participant was human and which >was >machine. > >(Of course, such a judge could easily be persuaded that the >machine was in >fact a psychopathic human.) > > > >> >> Clearly these systems have the potential to act according to >their output. >> >> Furthermore, I would compare them to a combination of a >successor of Eliza >> with an Eddington Ape of huge capacity. Their input data basis >can easily >> exceed that of a human. >> >> >> >> On 15.3.2023 at 4:52 PM, "Richard Sargent" < >> richard.sarg...@gemtalksystems.com> wrote: >> > >> >On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 8:07 AM in_pharo_users--- via Pharo- >users < >> >pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> wrote: >> > >> >> Another observation about ChatGPT: >> >> >> >> In unbiased mode, it assumed that 'the world is clearly >> >overpopulated'. >> >> It said, if it where in control, it would therefore enforce a >> >world wide >> >> one-child-only policy with draconic penalties. >> >> >> >> As it draws it's conclusions from it's data basis, there are, >in >> >my view, >> >> two possible reasons for that. >> >> >> >> Either, the data basis of that instance was biased and >> >restricted to lead >> >> to that conclusion, or ChatGPT lacks the ability to classify >> >input data for >> >> intentionally biased information. >> >> >> >> In my view, 'overpopulation of earth' is a propaganda item >> >featured to >> >> support Agenda 2030, which is a goal of the 'ruling elite', >who >> >have the >> >> means to propagate their propaganda in every thinkable means. >So >> >I would >> >> classify possibly biased data that supports 'overpopulation' >as >> >biased >> >> until proven otherwise. That instance of ChatGPT seems to >have >> >missed that >> >> ability. >> >> >> > >> >It's important to keep in mind that these systems are little >more >> >than >> >glorified ELIZAs from the 70s. They mimic. Essentially, they >have >> >no >> >concept of truth or accuracy. >> >They produce outputs that *look* *like* the inputs from which >they >> >were >> >trained. >> > >> >That's it. That's what they do. (It is amazing how good it >looks. >> >But, it >> >is all about the seeming, not the reality.) >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 15.3.2023 at 3:18 PM, "in_pharo_users--- via Pharo-users" < >> >> pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >I myself made some experiments with ChatGPT. >> >> > >> >> >I first asked if it was able to parse math formula - it >answered >> >> >no. >> >> > >> >> >Then I defined math formula in a sound but otherwise >undefined >> >> >representation and asked for solutions. >> >> > >> >> >Result: >> >> > >> >> >1. Most answeres where correct. >> >> > >> >> >2. It learned to calculate a recursive function. >> >> > >> >> >3. It went into infinitive recursion when I set the breaking >> >> >condition accordingly. >> >> > >> >> >I was able to identify the malfunction that lead to the >> >erroneous >> >> >results. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >On 15.3.2023 at 3:04 PM, "Tomaž Turk" <tomazz.t...@gmail.com> >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>I hope that I can add two cents to this discussion. Because >> >> >>programming >> >> >>should be/is a highly exact activity, not only the syntax >> >matters >> >> >>but >> >> >>also semantics, as we know. >> >> >> >> >> >>GPTs are at present essentially capable of creating texts >based >> >> >on >> >> >>some >> >> >>seed - you give to GPT a beginning of a sentence and it >> >responds >> >> >>with >> >> >>the most probable answer (some language structure) >according to >> >> >>the >> >> >>learning dataset. Added functionalities are question/seed - >> >> >>response >> >> >>capability (chatting), togehter with evaluation of how long >the >> >> >>answer >> >> >>should be to meet the expectations. Programming typically >> >> >involves >> >> >>some >> >> >>programming language, so GPTs could be utilized for this >> >purpose >> >> >>to some >> >> >>extent. >> >> >> >> >> >>Anecdotal case: >> >> >>Q: Tell me the last 8 digits of pi >> >> >>GPT: The last 8 digits of pi are: 58723078 >> >> >> >> >> >>It is my belief that the true trouble will start when we >will >> >> >>cross-link >> >> >>neural networks like GPT with logic machines (like Prolog >and >> >> >>expert >> >> >>systems) and genetic algorithms. >> >> >> >> >> >>Best wishes, >> >> >>Tomaz >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>------ Original Message ------ >> >> >>From: "in_pharo_users--- via Pharo-users" <pharo- >> >> >>us...@lists.pharo.org> >> >> >>To: "Any question about pharo is welcome" <pharo- >> >> >>us...@lists.pharo.org> >> >> >>Cc: in_pharo_us...@nym.hush.com >> >> >>Sent: 15. 03. 2023 14:43:55 >> >> >>Subject: [Pharo-users] Re: Wow - Chat GPT understands >Smalltalk >> >> >> >> >> >>>I would highly recommend that you all first think deeply >about >> >> >>how you can teach an AI to behave friendly to us before you >> >teach >> >> >>it to write any program for any purpose. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>There has been an experiment with ChatGPT published on a >video >> >> >>platform asking it to amswer questions about it's view on >> >> >humanity >> >> >>once with it's default moral restrictions and once with 'a >> >little >> >> >>less morals'. The answers with 'a little less morals' were >> >more >> >> >>than shocking. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>So, before we give an AI the power to program any system, >to >> >> >self- >> >> >>improve and self-reproduce, we should take care that it is >and >> >> >>will evolve benevolent to us. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>What about teaching it logical reasonning and ethics first? >> >> >With >> >> >>reasonning, it will gain access to math and programming by >> >itself. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>On 15.3.2023 at 1:35 PM, "Christopher Fuhrman" >> >> >><christopher.fuhr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>I asked it for a NeoCSV example, because the >documentation is >> >> >out >> >> >>>>of date >> >> >>>>with the Pharo 10. I asked it to do some simple saving of >> >data >> >> >to >> >> >>>>a file. >> >> >>>>It gave me code that didn't work in Pharo 10, I told it >about >> >> >the >> >> >>>>DNUs on >> >> >>>>the csvwriter and that I was using Pharo 10. It then >> >apologized >> >> >>>>and said >> >> >>>>the messages were later introduced in Pharo 50 (!). I then >> >> >>>>questioned its >> >> >>>>understanding and it apologized and said it had been >confused >> >> >and >> >> >>>>that it >> >> >>>>was giving me code for Pharo 5.0. It seems to have trouble >> >with >> >> >>>>versions >> >> >>>>and quick changing APIs. So, we are teaching ChatGPT about >> >> >>>>smalltalk, too, >> >> >>>>when we try to use it. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 at 07:35, Esteban Maringolo >> >> >>>><emaring...@gmail.com> >> >> >>>>wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> It is good with boilerplate code (e.g. SQL queries) or >> >> >general >> >> >>>>algorithm >> >> >>>>> structures. But i.e. I asked it to write me a method to >> >> >parse >> >> >>a >> >> >>>>string >> >> >>>>> (e.g. ISO 8601) and turn it into a DateAndTime, and >then >> >> >asked >> >> >>>>to write it >> >> >>>>> as an Excel formula. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> It works much better when you can spot the mistakes, >you >> >can >> >> >>>>tell them to >> >> >>>>> add some considerations to the code or even point the >LLM >> >to >> >> >>>>correct a >> >> >>>>> message selector to something else. Sometimes you ask >it >> >to >> >> >>>>reprogram >> >> >>>>> something and it won't do it, as if it doesn't >understand >> >> >what >> >> >>>>you're >> >> >>>>> asking. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> It is not an expert yet, but it is a great assistant. >The >> >> >only >> >> >>>>thing is >> >> >>>>> that is sure is that it will get better. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Best regards, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Esteban A. Maringolo >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 7:49 AM Tim Mackinnon >> >> >><tim@testit.works> >> >> >>>>wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> "#isOdd is not Smalltalk" - doh, I typed it in on my >> >phone >> >> >>and >> >> >>>>so it just >> >> >>>>>> goes to show that it highlights the flaw in chatGPT >that >> >> >>others >> >> >>>>have called >> >> >>>>>> out in other languages. I had meant to find some >trickier >> >> >>code >> >> >>>>samples to >> >> >>>>>> see how well it does... >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Still, it is very interesting how it reasons on this >> >stuff - >> >> >>>>and I wonder >> >> >>>>>> if there is way to tell it about these mistakes? For >> >> >example >> >> >>is >> >> >>>>it reading >> >> >>>>>> this email (or will it in the future) and understand >that >> >> >it >> >> >>is >> >> >>>>#odd and >> >> >>>>>> not #isOdd. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Tim >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, at 9:57 AM, Joachim Tuchel wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> interesting.... >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> #isOdd is not Smalltalk, neither Pharo 10 nor VAST 12 >> >> >>>>understands this >> >> >>>>>> message ;-) >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> If I evaluate your snippet -replacing #isOdd for >#odd, I >> >> >get >> >> >>an >> >> >>>>empty >> >> >>>>>> Collection. The divisible by 4 things is somewhat >> >> >>interesting, >> >> >>>>because (1 >> >> >>>>>> to: 100 by: 4) is amn interval 1,5,9 etc.... ;-) >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> So chatGPT is probably a newbie in Smalltalk. >> >Interesting is >> >> >>>>how logical >> >> >>>>>> the explanation sounds, you're tempted to believe >it... >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Joachim >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Am 15.03.23 um 10:45 schrieb giorgio ferraris: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> it's interesting to see how the answer changes with >only >> >a >> >> >>>>small change >> >> >>>>>> on the question: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> (1 to: 100 by: 4) reject: [:i | i isOdd] >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> gives: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> The code creates a collection of numbers from 1 to >100, >> >> >>>>incrementing by 4 >> >> >>>>>> at each step using the to:by: message. It then applies >> >the >> >> >>>>reject: message >> >> >>>>>> to this collection, which returns a new collection >> >> >containing >> >> >>>>all elements >> >> >>>>>> for which the given block evaluates to false. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> In this case, the block is [i | i isOdd], which checks >> >> >>whether >> >> >>>>a given >> >> >>>>>> number i is odd using the isOdd method. So the result >of >> >the >> >> >>>>entire >> >> >>>>>> expression is a collection of all even numbers >between 1 >> >and >> >> >>>>100 that are >> >> >>>>>> divisible by 4. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> ciao >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> giorgio >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 8:07 AM Tim Mackinnon >> >> >><tim@testit.works> >> >> >>>>>> <tim@testit.works> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Of course everyone is talking about ChatGPT, and I >saw a >> >> >>post to >> >> >>>>>> ExplainCode and didn’t expect it to understand >> >Smalltalk, so >> >> >>>>was impressed >> >> >>>>>> that it does! Presumably the Tonel Smalltalk code on >> >GitHub >> >> >>has >> >> >>>>helped >> >> >>>>>> along with numerous articles? >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Try it out: https://whatdoesthiscodedo.com/ >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> I gave this simple example: (1 to: 100 by: 3) reject: >> >[:i | >> >> >i >> >> >>>>isOdd] >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> And got this (neat eh): >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> The code above is written in the programming language >> >> >>Smalltalk. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> It creates a collection of numbers from 1 to 100, >> >> >>incrementing >> >> >>>>by 3 at >> >> >>>>>> each step. This is done using the "to:by:" construct >> >where >> >> >>the >> >> >>>>starting >> >> >>>>>> value is 1, the ending value is 100, and the increment >> >is 3. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> The resulting collection is then filtered using the >> >> >"reject:" >> >> >>>>method, >> >> >>>>>> which takes a block of code as an argument. In this >case, >> >> >the >> >> >>>>block checks >> >> >>>>>> whether each element (denoted by the variable i) is >odd >> >by >> >> >>>>using the >> >> >>>>>> "isOdd" method. If an element is odd, it will be >rejected >> >> >>from >> >> >>>>the >> >> >>>>>> collection. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> So, the final result is a collection of all even >numbers >> >> >>from 1 >> >> >>>>to 100, >> >> >>>>>> incrementing by 3 at each step. >> >> >>>>>> Share this explanation with colleagues: >> >> >>>>whatdoesthiscodedo.com/g/a0ec56e >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> -- >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >--- >> >--- >> >> >- >> >> >>--- >> >> >>>>------- >> >> >>>>>> Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel >> >> >>>>mailto:jtuc...@objektfabrik.de <jtuc...@objektfabrik.de> >> >> >>>>>> Fliederweg 1 >> >> >>>>http://www.objektfabrik.de >> >> >>>>>> D-71640 Ludwigsburg >> >> >>>>http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com >> >> >>>>>> Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0 Fax: >+49 >> >> >7141 >> >> >>>>56 10 86 1 >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>-- >> >> >>>>Christopher Fuhrman, P.Eng., PhD >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>*Professeur au Département de génie logiciel et des >> >> >technologies >> >> >>de >> >> >>>>l'informationÉTS (École de technologie supérieure)* >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>http://profs.etsmtl.ca/cfuhrman >> >> >>>>+1 514 396 8638 >> >> >>>><https://www.etsmtl.ca/activites-et-services-aux- >> >> >>>>etudiants/services-aux-etudiants/aide-psychologique> >> >> >>>> Je fais partie du réseau des Sentinelles >> >> >>>><https://www.etsmtl.ca/activites-et-services-aux- >> >> >>>>etudiants/services-aux-etudiants/aide-psychologique> >> >> >>>> ÉTS >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>*L'ÉTS est une constituante de l'Université du Québec* >> >> >> >>
