Offray, and to all others, you are missing the issue.
The problem we face is not to measure 'intelligence' of a system, but it's ability to verbally act indistinguishable from a human. This ability is allready given as chatbots are accepted by millions of users, f.i. as user interfaces. (measurement = 'true', right?) ChatGPT has the ability to follow a certain intention, f.i. to convince the user to buy a certain product. For this purpose, chat bots are getting now equipped with life like portrait pictures, speech input and output systems with life like voices, phone numbers that they can use to make calls or being called. They are fed with all available data on the user, and we know that ALL information about every single internet user in available and is being consolidared on necessity. The chat bots are able to use this information to guide their conversational strategy, as the useful aspects of the users mindset are extracted from his internet activity. These chat bots are now operated on social network platforms with life like names, 'pretending' to be human. These bots act verbally indistinguishable from humans for most social media users, as the most advanced psychotronic technology to manufacture consent. The first goal of such a propaganda will naturally be to manufacture consent about humans accepting being manipulated by AI chat bots, right? How can this be achieved? Like allways in propaganda, the first attempt is to - suppress awareness of the propaganda, then - suppress the awareness of the problematic aspects of the propaganda content, then - reframe the propaganda content as acceptable, then as something to wish for, - achive collaboration of the propaganda victim with the goals of the propaganda content. Interestingly, this is exactly the schema that your post follows, Offray. This often takes the form of domain framing, like we see in our conversation: the problem is shifted to the realm of academics - here informatics/computer sciences - and thus delegated to experts exclusively. We saw this in the 9/11 aftermath coverup. Then, Offray, you established yourself as an expert in color, discussing aspects that have allready been introduced by others and including the groups main focus 'Smalltalk', thus manufacturing consent and establishing yourself as a reliable 'expert', and in reverse trying to hit at me, whom you have identified as an adversary. Then you offered a solution in color to the problem at hand with 'traceable AI' and thus tried to open the possibility of collaboration with AI proponents for the once critical reader. I do not state, Offray, that you are knowingly an agent to promote the NWO AI program. I think you just 'learned' / have been programmed to be a successful academic software developer, because to be successful in academics, it is neccessary to learn to argue just like that since the downfall of academic science in the tradition of, let's say, Humboldt. So, I grant that you may be a victim of propaganda yourself, instead of being a secret service sposored agent. You took quite some time to formulate your post, though. You acted to contain the discussion about AI in this vital and important informatics community to technical detail, when it is neccessary that academics and community members look beyond the narrow borders of their certifications and shift their thinking to the point of view where they can see what technology does in the real world. On 21.3.2023 at 7:21 PM, "Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas" <offray.l...@mutabit.com> wrote: > >I agree with Richard. The Turing test is not a good one to test >intelligence and we have now just over glorified Eliza chatbots >that >appear to think and to understand but do none of them. > >There has been long criticism to the Turing Test, like John >Searle's >Chinese Room (I recommend to listen completely the talk at [1]). >It is >good that ChatGPT can explain simple (Smalltalk) code, but it >doesn't >understand it and all the language most are using conveys a lot of >deception: "machine learning" (I called machine training), >"artificial >intelligence" (I wold called algorithmic decision/generation), or >the >"thinking" message that is used in the referred code explainer, >when >something like "processing" would be less deceptive. > >[1] Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence | John Searle | Talks >at Google >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKwIYsPXLg > >With Pharo/GT we are part of a long "explainable systems" >tradition and >with "AI" / Algorithmic Decision/Generation, hopefully we go to >explainable AI, instead of a world of impressive black boxes. > > >Cheers, > >Offray > >On 15/03/23 13:26, Richard Sargent 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 >> <http://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* >> >> >>
