dog is highly interconnected - hormones, nerves, senses, and environment. neurons are not binary . every synapse is an infinite state variable.
doug > On Jul 27, 2020, at 10:45 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > Doug, > > Dog do joy; why not computers? > > n > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > Clark University > [email protected] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of doug carmichael > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 9:54 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] GPT-3 and the chinese room > > I imagine playing chess, or go, with a computer. As I play I have a very > enlivening experience of playing. The computer seems to have no such thing. > For me, in my engagement, “Every neuron is listening to the mutter of the > crowd.” Jerry Lettvin, MIT. If The computer goes on to win it has nothing > like the experience of winning. it just stops. I can’t imagine a computer > saying, except by playing a pre recorded sound file, “that is disgusting.” > > > > > On Jul 27, 2020, at 8:12 PM, Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/
