On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 5:28 AM Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
*> Huge progresses is being made, but we are not at the human level of > generality of intelligence and autonomy. Not even close.* > Not even close? Don't be silly. *> I fear that you are falling for the very human bias (I fall for it so > many times myself) of seeing what you want to see.* > And I fear you are whistling past the graveyard. *> A machine learning system can only be objectively evaluated by applying > it to data that was not used to train it.* > I don't know what you mean by that, you're not falling for that old cliché that computers can only do what they're told to do are you? GPT-4 was not trained on the exact questions asked; I suppose you could make a case that some of the training data GPT-4 was educated on was somewhat similar to some of the questions it was asked, but the exact same thing is true for human beings. When you ask questions to a human being some of those questions are somewhat similar to data he was educated on. In fact if some of the data 2 intelligences were educated on were not similar they would not be able to ask each other questions because they wouldn't even be able to communicate. *>Again, it is important to understand what exactly GPT-4 is doing. It is > certainly impressive, but it is not the same thing as a human being taking > an IQ test,* > So you must think the following fundamental axiom is true: *"If a human does something that is smart then the human is smart, but if a computer does the exact same thing then the computer is NOT smart." * And from that axiom it's easy to derive the following Corollary: *"Computers, buy definition, can never be smart."* I think you need to be more careful in picking your fundamental axioms. *> I do think that passing the Turing test is impressive,* > Probably the greatest understatement of all time. * > although it is true that most AI researchers never took it very > seriously,* > What?! I'm sure that in their daily lives AI researchers, like every other human being on planet earth, have met people in their life that they considered to be very intelligent, and people they considered to be very stupid, but if they didn't use the Turing Test to make that determination then what on earth did they use? All the Turing test is saying is that you need to play fair, whatever criteria you used to judge the intelligence of your fellow human beings you should also use on a computer to judge its intelligence. It's always the same, I'm old enough to remember when respectable people were saying a computer would never be able to do better than play a mediocre game of chess and certainly never be able to beat a grandmaster at the game. But when a computer did beat a grandmaster at Chess they switched gears and said such an accomplishment means nothing and insisted a computer could never beat a human champion at a game like GO because that really requires true intelligence. Of course when a computer did beat the human champion at GO they switched gears again and said that accomplishment means nothing because a computer would never be able to pass the Turing Test because that really* really* requires true intelligence. And now that a computer has passed the Turing Test the human response to that accomplishment is utterly predictable. As I said before, they're whistling past the graveyard. ... and so, just seconds before he was vaporized the last surviving human being turned to Mr. Jupiter Brain and said "*I still think I'm more intelligent than you*". *> GPT-4 and image generators are a type of intelligence that we had never > seen before. Maybe the first time such a thing arises in this galaxy or > even universe,* > I agree, and I can't think of anything more important that happened in my lifetime. > > *They are probably also similar to stuff that happens in our brain. > But what they are not is something you can be compare to a human mind with > an IQ test in any meaningful way.* > Not just *an* IQ test but 4 quite different types of IQ tests. And it was a lobotomized version of GPT-4 that was tested that could not input graphs and charts or diagrams so any question that contained them was automatically marked as getting wrong, and yet it STILL got an IQ of 114. And the computer completed those tests in seconds while it took humans hours to do the same thing. Imagine what IQ score it will get in two years, or even two months. And you say "not even close"? > *> That is just junk science.* > Huh? Creating "a type of intelligence that we had never seen before, maybe the first time such a thing arises in this galaxy or even the universe", is junk science? John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> e4v -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv09UxnUi2NYkBrn7Ti7h9o%3D%2BjDTiuFioY9dyGJ-tnypBQ%40mail.gmail.com.
