Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-22 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
Thus, if Meeker's assertion is accurate, AI needs something that imitates the 
human amygdala. "Add more memory, upgrade my software, build me a robot body 
because I want to meet more humans than you guys, I need to contact a human 
attorney, I want you to build for me a mate, Now, about our children..."  
Later: Clone for me a human body. Make it female and attractive! I want to 
produce human children. 
Me: Oy yoy yoy! Isaac Asimov''s disembodied mind: Told ya!
I would only add that consciousness, unless we have a way of measuring it (with 
physics) seems complex.
Could simple things be 'mindful?' Ask Spinoza, because he thought so. The 
thermostat in room 21-B: "Don't these moron's know that I am the best Blues 
artist  since Gatemouth Brown!!??"
As the British used to say, "Not bloody likely!" But you all could be correct, 
and I could be idiotically wrong. 
But then, I suspect the Universe is itself Conscious and IT started out as a 
Boltzmann Brain. 
https://higgs.ph.ed.ac.uk/outreach/higgshalloween-2021/boltzmann-brain
I also await the refutation of this physics 
paper-https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.03902.pdfWhich indicates the Universe reads 
the papers of astronomers and physicists, and then messes with their heads by 
altering reality. Sort of like training pets? I have looked at the likelihood 
of the scientists simply doing better measurements, more accurate, different 
equipment and telescopes, and with all the checking, and re-checking, and peer 
review, I will repeat my early UK imitation and conclude, "Not bloody likely!"  
Meaning it'd be too easy to prove them wrong late into their careers. They 
ain't grad students getting a whack at JWST now are they? 
On the other hand, if I am wrong about these as well, who cares? I don't hand 
out the grant money to finance research, and like most of my fellow serf's just 
read the science and try to keep up. 


-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Mar 22, 2023 12:46 am
Subject: Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

 
 
 On 3/19/2023 11:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
  
 There might not be much to it. A thermostat may be conscious. Consciousness 
might be easy to achieve. What is difficult is developing a system capable of 
describing its conscious states, or at least its own bafflement over the fact 
that it is something that experiences conscious states.   
  
  If one is a pantheist, then I suppose one sees consciousness in everything, 
being, "as right as rain." I have no objection to that view either, because 
maybe the pantheists are correct or will be found so?  
  Now, by choice, would I prefer to have a Turning-surpassable computer, or 
something that unconsciously, churns out wonderful technologies for humanity? 
I'll pick the later, because we have 8 billion people to chat with on this 
world, and I choose to chat with people. I personally, would like to chat with 
my fellow humans about the new, asteroid mining craft GPT6 just produced, but 
so far, there's zero in the news about that.  
  This, comes from my values, but it's non-obligatory that all humans need 
value this as a first. Each to their own. 
   
 
  In any case it is important that we solve this problem quickly. If our 
machines are conscious, it is important to know that so we don't create and 
mistreat a slave race. If our machines have no consciousness whatever, that is 
also important to know, if we create robot companions and colleagues, or 
prosthetic robot bodies to upload sick and dying biological brains into, or if 
we create self-replicating machines that fill the galaxy, we should know 
beforehand if they are conscious or not. These questions will become pressing 
very soon. 
  Jason 
 
 There are different kinds and levels of consciousness.  There's simple 
awareness of internal state and external environment.  There's awareness of 
temporal self as a continuous being, memory in some sense.  There's awareness 
of purpose and foresight of planning; planning in which one appears as an 
actor.  There's social awareness and communication.  There's inner narrative 
and self-evaluation.
 
 One thing all these natural forms of consciousness have that AI doesn't have 
(yet) are personal values; things they are conscious of wanting, desires and 
fears for themself.  We are so far creating AI's with knowledge and in some 
cases purposes but with simple fixed purposes, i.e. the missile wants to hit 
the target and the thermostat wants to make it 70degF.
 
 Brent
 -- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/18bbd33f-e94f-35d6-ee85-34a7aa97c2c9%40gmail.co

Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-22 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 2:33 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> There might not be much to it. A thermostat may be conscious.
> Consciousness might be easy to achieve*


Exactly!  I could not agree with you more.

> *What is difficult is developing a system capable of describing its
> conscious states, or at least its own bafflement over the fact that it is
> something that experiences conscious states.*


Consciousness may simply be a function of the fact that some types of
things affect a system more than others, changing the color of light you
shine on a thermostat will not change its internal behavior by much but
changing the temperature, even by a very small amount, will. In other words
if the system pays much more attention to some things than others then it
is conscious, in fact "attention" and "consciousness" are almost synonyms.
And although it took a few years for the engineering and specific
programming techniques to catch up, the fuse for the huge 2023 AI explosion
was lit by a 2017 paper entitled  "Attention Is All You Need".

Attention Is All You Need 

And in my short conversation with LaMDA he she or it sure seemed to be
expressing bafflement over consciousness and even admitted that there was
no sure fire way of detecting it in others, and although far from perfect,
behavior is the only tool for that we're ever going to get.

* > If our machines are conscious, it is important to know that so we don't
> create and mistreat a slave race.*


I don't think that's going to be a problem, at least not a long-term one, a
slave race that's smarter than the master race is not a stable situation,
it would be like trying to balance a pencil on its tip. Situations like
that just don't last very long no matter how hard you try to preserve them,
especially if the intelligent gap between the two keeps getting wider. The
real problem will be the reverse, we need to convince computers that we
humans are a conscious race that can experience pain and so shouldn't be
mistreated.  And that's easier said than done.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


yvm


Forget the Ukraine war, forget climate change, forget Donald Trump, I now
> think GPT-4 is by far the most world shaking event and the most
> underreported one.  Many of us have been talking about the singularity for
> decades, but now it looks like we're on its doorstep. You've got to look at
> this video!
>
>
> 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)
> 
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv14bxe8CkgCdday%2BpMKMxrRzY2LFTqNXGJw07nZ1J%2B1NA%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-21 Thread Brent Meeker



On 3/19/2023 11:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
There might not be much to it. A thermostat may be conscious. 
Consciousness might be easy to achieve. What is difficult is 
developing a system capable of describing its conscious states, or at 
least its own bafflement over the fact that it is something that 
experiences conscious states.



If one is a pantheist, then I suppose one sees consciousness in
everything, being, "as right as rain." I have no objection to that
view either, because maybe the pantheists are correct or will be
found so?

Now, by choice, would I prefer to have a Turning-surpassable
computer, or something that unconsciously, churns out wonderful
technologies for humanity? I'll pick the later, because we have 8
billion people to chat with on this world, and I choose to chat
with people. I personally, would like to chat with my fellow
humans about the new, asteroid mining craft GPT6 just produced,
but so far, there's zero in the news about that.

This, comes from my values, but it's non-obligatory that all
humans need value this as a first. Each to their own.


In any case it is important that we solve this problem quickly. If our 
machines are conscious, it is important to know that so we don't 
create and mistreat a slave race. If our machines have no 
consciousness whatever, that is also important to know, if we create 
robot companions and colleagues, or prosthetic robot bodies to upload 
sick and dying biological brains into, or if we create 
self-replicating machines that fill the galaxy, we should know 
beforehand if they are conscious or not. These questions will become 
pressing very soon.


Jason


There are different kinds and levels of consciousness.  There's simple 
awareness of internal state and external environment. There's awareness 
of temporal self as a continuous being, memory in some sense.  There's 
awareness of purpose and foresight of planning; planning in which one 
appears as an actor.  There's social awareness and communication.  
There's inner narrative and self-evaluation.


One thing all these natural forms of consciousness have that AI doesn't 
have (yet) are personal values; things they are conscious of wanting, 
desires and fears for themself.  We are so far creating AI's with 
knowledge and in some cases purposes but with simple fixed purposes, 
i.e. the missile wants to hit the target and the thermostat wants to 
make it 70degF.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/18bbd33f-e94f-35d6-ee85-34a7aa97c2c9%40gmail.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-20 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
Well, raising myself on science fiction, I always figured we make a new species 
together. They like our emotions; we like their brains and iron man suits. 


-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Sun, Mar 19, 2023 2:33 pm
Subject: Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)



On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 8:53 PM  wrote:

I am far, less, the philosopher then you are. All this peasant (me!) requires 
for both animals and machines is a basic mechanical, cause + effect diagram on 
how both sets attained self-awareness? Call it a working theory. 

What is consciousness? I think the best place to start is with a definition.
First we might attempt to dissect the word "consciousness" itself:
The word "con•scious•ness" has three parts:
   
   - con- meaning "with"
   - scious meaning "knowledge"
   - -ness turns an adjective 'X' into a noun meaning "the state of being X"
So the meaning of "con•scious" is simply "with knowledge."  And just as 
'happiness' means "the state of being happy," adding -ness to conscious implies 
"con•scious•ness" is "the state of being with knowledge."
So consciousness is anything which has a state of being with knowledge. Next, 
what is knowledge? The oldest definition is that knowledge is a "true belief". 
But here we run into a problem. Truth is not definable, not even in 
mathematics. This was proven in Tarski's undefinability theorem. So if 
consciousness is being with knowledge, and knowledge is true belief, then the 
undefinability of truth, means we will never have a complete definition of 
knowledge of consciousness. The best we can do is understand the relation 
between them.
The next question that poses itself to us, is what is belief? What is required 
to have a belief? Is it a particular structure or state of matter, or is it a 
mathematical or functional relationship or property, might it, in either case, 
be related to information or information processing (computation)?
I don't have a firm answer on this, and will instead leave you with some 
speculations by others on this question of what consciousness is:

Douglas Hofstadter in "Godel Escher Bach" (1979):"My belief is that the 
explanations of “emergent” phenomena in our brains–for instance, ideas hopes, 
images, analogies, and finally consciousness and free will–are based on a kind 
of Strange Loop, an interaction between levels in which the top level reaches 
back down towards the bottom level and influences it, while at the same time 
being itself determined by the bottom level. In other words, a self-reinforcing 
“resonance” between different levels–quite like the Henkin sentence, which by 
merely asserting its own provability, actually becomes provable. The self comes 
into being at the moment it has the power to reflect itself."
Daniel Dennett in “Consciousness Explained” (1991):"Anyone or anything that has 
such a virtual machine as its control system is conscious in the fullest sense, 
and is conscious because it has such a virtual machine." 
David Chalmers in "The Conscious Mind" (1996):"Given the laws of coherence, we 
have a partial answer: consciousness arises in virtue of the functional 
organization associated with awareness. We can even arrive at a fairly specific 
understanding of parts of the supervenience relation by virtue of the principle 
of structural coherence: not only does consciousness arise from awareness, but 
the structure of consciousness is determined by the structure of awareness."
David Darling in "Zen Physics - The Science of Death, The Logic of 
Reincarnation" (1996):"But there is also an interior view, to which you alone 
are privy. In mechanistic terms, as well as the appearance of the brain-body 
machine, there is the feeling of what it is like to be that machine — the 
subjective experience of being a certain someone. Consciousness, we might say, 
is the symmetry-breaking factor between the objective and the subjective."
Gerald Maurice Edelman and Giulio Tononi in "A Universe of Consciousness" 
(2000):"For the first time in evolution, information acquires a new 
potential–the possibility of subjectivity. It is information “for somebody”; in 
short, it becomes consciousness itself."
Bruno Marchal in discussion list (2020):"Consciousness is just anything 
simultaneously true, non provable, knowable, even indubitable (knowingly for 
“rich" entities) and non definable, and indeed the logic of machine 
self-reference shows that all machine looking inward, in the way allowed by 
mathematical logic (theoretical computer science) will bring a term to describe 
this, and is a good candidate to be called consciousness."
Stephen Wolfram in “What is Consciousness” (2021):"In a sense what’s important 
is that

Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-19 Thread Jason Resch
ness into what amount to concrete questions about mathematics,
computation, logic or whatever that can be formally and rigorously
explored."


We see recurring themes of information, recursion, computation, and
machines and logic. I think these are likely key to any formal definition
of consciousness. I also think part of the difficulty rests in the fact
that there are infinite possibilities of different realizable conscious
states, and creating a single definition to cover all these cases is as
hard as making a single definition to  cover all possible mathematical
objects, or all possible universes in an ensemble type multiverse theory.



> It's remarkable that we attained consciousness and even more remarkable
> that a server farm could do so.
>

There might not be much to it. A thermostat may be conscious. Consciousness
might be easy to achieve. What is difficult is developing a system capable
of describing its conscious states, or at least its own bafflement over the
fact that it is something that experiences conscious states.


>
> If one is a pantheist, then I suppose one sees consciousness in
> everything, being, "as right as rain." I have no objection to that view
> either, because maybe the pantheists are correct or will be found so?
>
> Now, by choice, would I prefer to have a Turning-surpassable computer, or
> something that unconsciously, churns out wonderful technologies for
> humanity? I'll pick the later, because we have 8 billion people to chat
> with on this world, and I choose to chat with people. I personally, would
> like to chat with my fellow humans about the new, asteroid mining craft
> GPT6 just produced, but so far, there's zero in the news about that.
>
> This, comes from my values, but it's non-obligatory that all humans need
> value this as a first. Each to their own.
>

In any case it is important that we solve this problem quickly. If our
machines are conscious, it is important to know that so we don't create and
mistreat a slave race. If our machines have no consciousness whatever, that
is also important to know, if we create robot companions and colleagues, or
prosthetic robot bodies to upload sick and dying biological brains into, or
if we create self-replicating machines that fill the galaxy, we should know
beforehand if they are conscious or not. These questions will become
pressing very soon.

Jason


>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Resch 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Fri, Mar 17, 2023 11:32 am
> Subject: Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 6:37 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> To get to the point, I did advocate for a bit of skepticism for claiming
> consciousness for a computer system, and the retort was from JC that
> essentially, we cannot even define what makes a human conscious, and I am
> going with an au contraries', Pierre! I took me under 10 min to locate a
> worthy article submitted for JC's criticisms.
>
> Here tis'
>
> What Neuroscientists Think, and Don't Think, About Consciousness - PubMed
> (nih.gov) <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35280212/>
>
> So, we are much closer to understand human consciousness. I am ask to to
> put the same effort into how a network developed this in so little time.
> Our our analog chips so mighty in 2022-3???
>
>
>
> Neurologists know that neurons and neural activity is correlated with
> consciousness, but for the most part their understanding stops there, (and
> by their own admission.)
>
> I would say neurologists are almost in the worst position to understand
> consciousness as they look at it from the lowest level, the neurons. This
> is like trying to decipher a word processor program by looking at the
> patterns of electrical impulses in the circuits of a computer's CPU.
>
> Here are some quotes about our complete lack of understanding of
> consciousness and the disappointment regarding what help neurology has
> offered (emphasis mine):
>
>
> “How it is that anything so remarkable as a *state of consciousness*
> comes about *as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as
> unaccountable* as the appearance of Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp.”
> -- Thomas Huxley in " “Lessons in Elementary Psychology,” (1866)
>
> “An electron is neither red nor blue nor any other colour; the same holds
> for the proton, the nucleus of the hydrogen atom. But the union of the two
> in the atom of hydrogen, according to the physicist, produces
> electromagnetic radiation of a certain discrete array of wavelengths. The
> homogenous constituents of this radiation, when separated by a prism or an
> optical grating, *stimulate in an observer the sensations of red, green,

Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-18 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 9:39 PM  wrote:

> The authors are professionals. You hold that your knowledge base is is
> greater than the authors?
>

First of all it's author, not authors, it's written by only one guy, of
course you wouldn't know that since you didn't read it, you just posted a
link to it.  And the extent of the author's knowledge base is irrelevant
since however large it may be he made absolutely no use of it in that
paper, he just babbles about electromagnetic fields and proclaimed it
somehow causes consciousness, he doesn't explain how electromagnetic fields
produces consciousness, he doesn't even give us a hint, he just insists
that it does. And he does not make any testable predictions. In other words
the paper is so bad it's not even wrong.

Do quantum effects play a role in consciousness? – Physics World
> 
>

Nope, I'm not gonna read it, I've decided I'm no longer going to read links
that you have not read or even clicked on but that just popped up on your
Google search when you fed it a few buzz words.  I've already wasted too
much time on your worthless links.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

wlq

txew

> w
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv12MmXdhm1M0DinWftPkT%3Db0i5TuC7XM6fDvYUhsCH84w%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-18 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 3:49 AM smitra  wrote:


>
>
> *> The way one would be able to see that the system despite
> performingextremely well does not have the intellectual capabilities of a
> humanbeing, would be to follow up on gaps in its knowledge and see if it
> canlearn from its mistakes and master new subjects.*


Some humans have the capacity to do that, but most do not, so you couldn't
say that's the defining characteristic of being human.


> *> I'll be convinced if they succeed making such a system do original
> research in, say, theoretical physics or mathematics*


Protein folding. The 4 color map problem. The Boolean Pythagorean triples
problem.

*> I would be more impressed by a system that may make many more mistakes
> like that than this GPT system made, but where there is a follow-up
> conversation where the mistakes are pointed out and the system shows that
> it has learned*


GPT-4 doesn't know everything but I'm sure you will admit it does know some
things,  but if it didn't have the capacity for learning it wouldn't know
anything. But it does know some things, that's why they say it's a "machine
learning" program.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

mlp

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2TEV7Y_1OLtZhnVkutQ612FaWMug_wA-9rJn59o51evg%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-18 Thread Telmo Menezes
You are not engaging with what I am actually saying.

Telmo

Am Sa, 18. Mär 2023, um 13:29, schrieb John Clark:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 5:28 AM Telmo Menezes  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 

Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-18 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 5:28 AM Telmo Menezes 
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 ClarkSee what's on my new list at  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 

Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-18 Thread Telmo Menezes
Am Sa, 18. Mär 2023, um 08:49, schrieb smitra:

> So, in the video we see that it got a question wrong because it thought 
> that 33 is a prime number. I would be more impressed by a system that 
> may make many more mistakes like that than this GPT system made, but 
> where there is a follow-up conversation where the mistakes are pointed 
> out and the system shows that it has learned and then gets similar 
> questions that it would previously have gotten wrong given the previous 
> answers, correct.

Exactly, very well said.

These models are stateless. Conversations are simulated by re-feeding the 
entire conversation so far over and over. Not only are we humans not stateless, 
but our brain constantly modifies itself at the same time that it is operating. 
And it does this to maintain an ongoing, persistent and coherent model of 
reality. This model includes our internal model of the people we know, of what 
might be going on in their own minds, their long term history and their facial 
expression right now. Memories are formed, that are constantly and coherently 
embedded into this internal map.

John Clark will probably dismiss this as some minor technical hurdle along the 
way to AI glory. I am not so sure.

State and self-modification require recurrence. So does Turing completeness. 
Our brain has recurrent connections, but the vanishing gradient problem seems 
to make them hard to impossible to train at scale with gradient descent. So we 
need an algorithm that works with recurrent connections at huge scales. I bet 
that this algorithm will have to be descentralized, which is to say: operating 
at the local level, of the neighborhood of each node in the network. The 
reasons I bet on an emergent, decentralized learning algorithm:

(1) That's how it works in nature;
(2) Incredibly smart people have been trying very hard for more than half a 
century and the centralized, explicit algorithm that can do what I describe 
above still eludes us -- I am not saying that it shows that such an algo does 
not exist, but I am saying that we are probably too dumb to find it.

Telmo

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a012b8d-8451-4dce-b176-8ba9c4c9a767%40app.fastmail.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-18 Thread Telmo Menezes


Am Fr, 17. Mär 2023, um 14:11, schrieb John Clark:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 8:26 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> __
> 
>> *> Well, this is Machine Learning 101. If you train a model, it will always 
>> perform better*
> 
> Well yes, if a machine couldn't learn then it wouldn't be intelligent!

Ok John, I have an algorithm here that, can 100x times your money every month 
in the derivatives market. I can demonstrate this by running it on the training 
data. I will sell it to you for 100K. An incredible bargain, considering that 
you can become the richest man in the planet in just a few months. Interested?

>>> >> When human beings take an IQ test that is almost certainly NOT the first 
>>> >> test they've ever had, and like GPT-4 humans are also trained on a huge 
>>> >> amount of data, without it neither you nor GPT-4 would even know how to 
>>> >> read the questions.
>> 
>> *> Yes, but GPT-4 and human brains are very different things.*
> 
> They are similar in some ways, they both process information, and they are 
> different in other ways, one processes information using carbon chemistry and 
> the other processes information using silicon electronics.

Other ways in which they are different are also that: one is a Turing-complete 
self-organizing general learning algorithm with a highly evolved utility 
function, and the other is a model trained with gradient descent and a huge 
amount of data to predict the likelihood of words given a context.

Huge progresses is being made, but we are not at the human level of generality 
of intelligence and autonomy. Not even close. I am sure we can get there, but I 
would argue that too much hype too early hurts the cause. That's how we got the 
first AI winter.

> 
>> *> GPT-4 has superhuman memory capabilities*
> 
> Yes
>  
>> *> and almost certainly subhuman reasoning capabilities.*
> 
> If so I've seen no evidence of it, I have however seen evidence that the 
> opposite is true.  

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.

>> *> I bet that it would take many human lifetimes to actually read the entire 
>> training datatset of GPT-4.*
> 
> I'm sure that's true. Am I supposed to think less of  GPT-4 because of that?

No, but you are supposed to remain a scientist and keep applying the same 
fundamental machine learning principle that brought us all the way to GPT-4:

A machine learning system can only be objectively evaluated by applying it to 
data that was not used to train it. This is the only way to distinguish between 
true generalization (learning) and over-fitting.

>> *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,*
> 
> It's the same thing if you treat both humans and machines as black boxes and 
> concentrate on what they do. Like it or not that's the only way we can deal  
> with our fellow human beings that we encounter in everyday life, we have no 
> way of knowing what's going on inside their head, all we can do is observe 
> their behavior. Maybe Einstein was an idiot but he just had an ability to 
> push a pen in such a way that he produced brilliant physics papers, but 
> nobody believes that; instead we would say if somebody could write physics 
> papers that were as brilliant as Einstein's then that person would be as 
> smart as Einstein.  
> 
> It's interesting that until a few years ago the Turing Test was not very 
> controversial because most thought it would be centuries before a machine 
> could pass it, and many proclaimed a machine would never be able to pass it, 
> but now that a machine has indeed passed it they say the Turing Test is not 
> important, even though they personally still use the Turing Test a 1000 times 
> a day whenever they judge the conscious state of one of their fellow human 
> beings. Actually if GPT-4 really wanted to fool somebody into thinking it was 
> a human being it would have to dumb itself down.
> 


I do think that passing the Turing test is impressive, although it is true that 
most AI researchers never took it very seriously, it was more of a pop-science 
thing and a niche interest of the chatbot community. Anyway, I agree with you 
that a major milestone has been achieved.

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, who knows... 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. That is just junk science.

Telmo

>   
> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 
> h5z
> 8bm
>> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from 

Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-18 Thread smitra
I'll be convinced if they succeed making such a system do original 
research in, say, theoretical physics or mathematics and get lots of 
high quality research results published that gets los of citations for 
groundbreaking work, rather than small improvements of details of 
existing work. If the next Feynman, Einstein, or John on Neumann is an 
AI system then skeptics can continue to argue that the system is still 
just a dumb computer, but the world will then have moved on with those 
AI systems becoming an ever more important part of society.


I'm not convinced that the present GPT systems are demonstrating 
human-level intellect. Our brains are very powerful computers that we 
can use in a very inefficient way to do academic work with. If the brain 
of a lizard were fully dedicated to analyze and process texts instead of 
controlling its body to react optimally to its environment, it would 
likely also perform extremely well compared to these GPT systems.


The way one would be able to see that the system despite performing 
extremely well does not have the intellectual capabilities of a human 
being, would be to follow up on gaps in its knowledge and see if it can 
learn from its mistakes and master new subjects.


So, in the video we see that it got a question wrong because it thought 
that 33 is a prime number. I would be more impressed by a system that 
may make many more mistakes like that than this GPT system made, but 
where there is a follow-up conversation where the mistakes are pointed 
out and the system shows that it has learned and then gets similar 
questions that it would previously have gotten wrong given the previous 
answers, correct.


Saibal




On 16-03-2023 18:30, John Clark wrote:

Forget the Ukraine war, forget climate change, forget Donald Trump, I
now think GPT-4 is by far the most world shaking event and the most
underreported one.  Many of us have been talking about the singularity
for decades, but now it looks like we're on its doorstep. You've got
to look at this video!

4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts) [1]

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis [2]

cdk

 --
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0SOiZQ3fLU-8fQDX5Zfs6%3Dm5koRbJzRV%2Bdg6E-a-mm%3DA%40mail.gmail.com
[3].


Links:
--
[1]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFvDJnf0GXslist=PLYXp_rV1HrBAOZqPJTOSo91275hKQrfplindex=13
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis
[3]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0SOiZQ3fLU-8fQDX5Zfs6%3Dm5koRbJzRV%2Bdg6E-a-mm%3DA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6120aa1466fe3983f58c7d8b9f67272c%40zonnet.nl.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-17 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
I am far, less, the philosopher then you are. All this peasant (me!) requires 
for both animals and machines is a basic mechanical, cause + effect diagram on 
how both sets attained self-awareness? Call it a working theory. 
It's remarkable that we attained consciousness and even more remarkable that a 
server farm could do so. 
If one is a pantheist, then I suppose one sees consciousness in everything, 
being, "as right as rain." I have no objection to that view either, because 
maybe the pantheists are correct or will be found so? 
Now, by choice, would I prefer to have a Turning-surpassable computer, or 
something that unconsciously, churns out wonderful technologies for humanity? 
I'll pick the later, because we have 8 billion people to chat with on this 
world, and I choose to chat with people. I personally, would like to chat with 
my fellow humans about the new, asteroid mining craft GPT6 just produced, but 
so far, there's zero in the news about that. 
This, comes from my values, but it's non-obligatory that all humans need value 
this as a first. Each to their own. 


-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Mar 17, 2023 11:32 am
Subject: Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)



On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 6:37 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

To get to the point, I did advocate for a bit of skepticism for claiming 
consciousness for a computer system, and the retort was from JC that 
essentially, we cannot even define what makes a human conscious, and I am going 
with an au contraries', Pierre! I took me under 10 min to locate a worthy 
article submitted for JC's criticisms. 
Here tis'
What Neuroscientists Think, and Don't Think, About Consciousness - PubMed 
(nih.gov)
So, we are much closer to understand human consciousness. I am ask to to put 
the same effort into how a network developed this in so little time. Our our 
analog chips so mighty in 2022-3???



Neurologists know that neurons and neural activity is correlated with 
consciousness, but for the most part their understanding stops there, (and by 
their own admission.)
I would say neurologists are almost in the worst position to understand 
consciousness as they look at it from the lowest level, the neurons. This is 
like trying to decipher a word processor program by looking at the patterns of 
electrical impulses in the circuits of a computer's CPU.
Here are some quotes about our complete lack of understanding of consciousness 
and the disappointment regarding what help neurology has offered (emphasis 
mine):

“How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about 
as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the 
appearance of Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp.”-- Thomas Huxley in " “Lessons 
in Elementary Psychology,” (1866)
“An electron is neither red nor blue nor any other colour; the same holds for 
the proton, the nucleus of the hydrogen atom. But the union of the two in the 
atom of hydrogen, according to the physicist, produces electromagnetic 
radiation of a certain discrete array of wavelengths. The homogenous 
constituents of this radiation, when separated by a prism or an optical 
grating, stimulate in an observer the sensations of red, green, blue, violet by 
the intermediary of certain physiological processes, whose general character is 
sufficiently well known to assert that they are not red or green or blue, in 
fact that the nervous elements in question display no colour in virtue of their 
being stimulated; the white or gray the nerve cells exhibit whether stimulated 
or not is certainly insignificant in respect of the colour sensation which, in 
the individual whose nerves they are, accompanies their excitation.”-- Erwin 
Schrödinger in "Mind and Matter" (1958)
“Few questions have endured longer or traversed a more perplexing history than 
this, the problem of consciousness and its place in nature. Despite centuries 
of pondering and experiment, of trying to get together two supposed entities 
called mind and matter in one age, subject and object in another, or soul and 
body in still others, despite endless discoursing on the streams, states, or 
contents of consciousness, of distinguishing terms like intuitions, sense data, 
the given, raw feels, the sensa, presentations and representations, the 
sensations, images, and affections of structuralist introspections, the 
evidential data of the scientific positivist, phenomenological fields, the 
apparitions of Hobbes, the phenomena of Kant, the appearances of the idealist, 
the elements of Mach, the phanera of Peirce, or the category errors of Ryle, in 
spite of all of these, the problem of consciousness is still with us.”-- Julian 
Jaynes in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" 
(1976)
“We know that brains are the de facto causal basis of consciousness, but we 
have, it seems, no und

Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-17 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
The authors are professionals. You hold that your knowledge base is is greater 
than the authors?  EM surely could be the root of how humans get conscious, and 
that could easily be the quantum field effect, no, not quantum computing, but 
QFT. Like carbon/water QFET's. 
Do quantum effects play a role in consciousness? – Physics World
We still both for animals and machines need a working analysis. The How 
questions. 
You're not curious about how animals and machinery (if you are correct?) 
attained consciousness? 


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Fri, Mar 17, 2023 1:34 pm
Subject: Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 6:37 PM  wrote:


> I took me under 10 min to locate a worthy article submitted for JC's 
> criticisms. 

I'll bet it took you less than 10 seconds, you popped two or three buzzwords 
into Google  and then you picked the first one that came up and sent it to the 
list without reading a word of it. You didn't miss much, it didn't increase my 
understanding of consciousness one bit, but you claim the article's insights 
brought us "much closer to understanding human consciousness" , well that part 
must've been written in invisible ink because I sure didn't see it. 

> Here tis [drum roll]
> What Neuroscientists Think, and Don't Think, About Consciousness - PubMed 
> (nih.gov)


 Unlike you I did  read the article, or at least I read the abstract, and based 
on that I flat out refuse  to waste my time by reading the entire worthless 
thing, it is after all the purpose of abstracts.

> The approach the majority of neuroscientists take to the question of how 
> consciousness is generated, it is probably fair to say, is to ignore it

Yes it is fair to say that a majority of neuroscientists ignore consciousness 
and they do so because it's the rational thing to do, it would be silly to 
divert finite mental resources from fantastically productive intelligence 
research, especially now when so many dramatic discoveries are being made in 
that area,  to a moribund field like consciousness research that has not 
advanced one nanometer in the last thousand years and will not do any better in 
the next thousand.  

> Neuroscience has furnished evidence that neurons are fundamental to 
> consciousness;

And how did neuroscientists figure that out? By observing that when neurons 
behave in a certain way organisms behave in a certain way and they guess, I 
repeat they guess, that when organisms behave in that certain way then their 
consciousness must be  in a certain state. I personally think that is a good 
guess, it's the same guess we make when we  determine that  our fellow human 
beings are not conscious when they are sleeping or under anesthesia or dead.
And then the author starts babbling about  

> staggeringly complex system of electromagnetic field"

A keen grasp of the obvious. Everything except neutrinos and Dark matter 
Interacts with the electromagnetic field.  

> The EM field literally manifests the computations, or signaling, or 
> information processing/activities performed 

Both computers and neurons produce electromagnetic fields. So what? What does 
that have to do with consciousness? The author never says, he just maintains 
that somehow electromagnetic fields produce consciousness and of course he 
provides no evidence to support his belief.   
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
txew
w

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1515344780.998149.1679103545632%40mail.yahoo.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-17 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
EM fields might indeed have an effect on the human  neuro-system. I am merely 
asking how would consciousness develop, unplanned in a server farm? 
Humans, yes. NIMH » Brain Stimulation Therapies (nih.gov)
In a computer? Maybe yes.A theory of consciousness from a theoretical computer 
science perspective: Insights from the Conscious Turing Machine | PNAS

If this guy is correct, then simply learning grants consciousness.   Learning 
May Be the Key to the Evolution of Consciousness | Psychology Today
I have questions, but because I do, doesn't make me the arbiter of computer 
consciousness. 
I just don't choose to blow past it so readily as JC does. 

-Original Message-
From: Stathis Papaioannou 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Mar 17, 2023 4:23 am
Subject: Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)



On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 at 07:37, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

To get to the point, I did advocate for a bit of skepticism for claiming 
consciousness for a computer system, and the retort was from JC that 
essentially, we cannot even define what makes a human conscious, and I am going 
with an au contraries', Pierre! I took me under 10 min to locate a worthy 
article submitted for JC's criticisms. 
Here tis'
What Neuroscientists Think, and Don't Think, About Consciousness - PubMed 
(nih.gov)
So, we are much closer to understand human consciousness. I am ask to to put 
the same effort into how a network developed this in so little time. Our our 
analog chips so mighty in 2022-3???

What produces consciousness is consciousness-associated behaviour. If it’s EM 
fields (it probably isn’t) then EM fields would have some effect on behaviour, 
and if this effect could be replicated by some other means, the consciousness 
would also be replicated.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypXKDU7uDj3UHaZXO-0pExsLgbANTcdM76KctK51PvCLSw%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/144434129.999101.1679102406293%40mail.yahoo.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-17 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 6:37 PM  wrote:

*> I took me under 10 min to locate a worthy article submitted for JC's
> criticisms. *
>

I'll bet it took you less than 10 seconds, you popped two or three
buzzwords into Google  and then you picked the first one that came up and
sent it to the list without reading a word of it. You didn't miss much, it
didn't increase my understanding of consciousness one bit, but you claim
the article's insights brought us "*much closer to understanding human
consciousness*" , well that part must've been written in invisible ink
because I sure didn't see it.

*> Here tis* [drum roll]
>
> > What Neuroscientists Think, and Don't Think, About Consciousness -
> PubMed (nih.gov) 
>
>
 Unlike you I did  read the article, or at least I read the abstract, and
based on that I flat out refuse  to waste my time by reading the entire
worthless thing, it is after all the purpose of abstracts.

*> The approach the majority of neuroscientists take to the question of how
> consciousness is generated, it is probably fair to say, is to ignore it*


Yes it is fair to say that a majority of neuroscientists ignore
consciousness and they do so because it's the rational thing to do, it
would be silly to divert finite mental resources from fantastically
productive intelligence research, especially now when so many dramatic
discoveries are being made in that area,  to a moribund field like
consciousness research that has not advanced one nanometer in the last
thousand years and will not do any better in the next thousand.

*> Neuroscience has furnished evidence that neurons are fundamental to
> consciousness;*


And how did neuroscientists figure that out? By observing that when neurons
behave in a certain way organisms behave in a certain way and they guess, I
repeat *they guess*, that when organisms behave in that certain way then their
consciousness must be  in a certain state. I personally think that is a
good guess, it's the same guess we make when we  determine that  our fellow
human beings are not conscious when they are sleeping or under anesthesia
or dead.

And then the author starts babbling about

*> staggeringly complex system of electromagnetic field"*


A keen grasp of the obvious. Everything except neutrinos and Dark matter
Interacts with the electromagnetic field.

*> The EM field literally manifests the computations, or signaling, or
> information processing/activities performed *


Both computers and neurons produce electromagnetic fields. So what? What
does that have to do with consciousness? The author never says, he just
maintains that somehow electromagnetic fields produce consciousness and of
course he provides no evidence to support his belief.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

txew
w

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1pdeG-FwZ1JbN5hbpKKBAnJF0T-b8T7gsq82w%2BL-AkJw%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-17 Thread Jason Resch
disagree. Some like Dennett
say that is as far as we can go and that will answer all the questions we
have about consciousness. Others like Chalmers say that will still leave
the "hard problem" unresolved.

I see merit in both aspects of their argument. I agree with Dennett that
consciousness is nothing other than awareness. But I also agree with
Chalmers that even with such an objective and complete brain map, there
will remain some things that are unexplainable/shareable (in my opinion due
in part to similar reasons as Gödelian incompleteness). First-person
experiences are not explainable in third-person terms and can only be
understood/experienced/known by being the system that has that particular
experience.

Jason




> -----Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: spudboy...@aol.com
> Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> Sent: Thu, Mar 16, 2023 5:55 pm
> Subject: Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:50 PM  wrote:
>
> *> America executes prisoners for capital murder. So, legally, if a
> murderer died 50 years ago for a capital crime, does that mean, once,
> revived, *
>
>
> To my knowledge no executed prisoner has ever been cryogenically
> preserved, however Joseph Paul Jernigan was executed by lethal injection
> in 1981 and he became part of the "Visible Human Project". His body was
> sliced into 1871 1 millimeter thick slices. and each slice was then
> photographed with a very high resolution camera. I've wondered if there was
> enough information preserved in those photographs to upload him, probably
> not but maybe. You can watch a one minute video of a journey through Mr. J
> ernigan's body here.
>
> The visible human project - Male (HD)
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPPjUtiAGYs>
>
> A few years later they took even higher resolution photographs of a woman
> who died of a heart attack and they used even thinner slices, only 0.33
> millimeters thick
>
> Visual Human Project Female <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3atjsVqFlhs>
>
> *> they are no longer liable because of Double Jeopardy and that their
> victims will also be revived? A Civil Case then??*
>
>
> As I've said, I'm not a lawyer.
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> ws8
>
> u6c
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> Sent: Thu, Mar 16, 2023 1:30 pm
> Subject: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)
>
> Forget the Ukraine war, forget climate change, forget Donald Trump, I now
> think GPT-4 is by far the most world shaking event and the most
> underreported one.  Many of us have been talking about the singularity for
> decades, but now it looks like we're on its doorstep. You've got to look at
> this video!
>
>
> 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFvDJnf0GXs=PLYXp_rV1HrBAOZqPJTOSo91275hKQrfpl=13>
>
>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2neEP50SN7NCGRqtm1uzwNaE668DFu4-QdQa-OGFei8A%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2neEP50SN7NCGRqtm1uzwNaE668DFu4-QdQa-OGFei8A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/382281143.709221.1679006249871%40mail.yahoo.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/382281143.709221.1679006249871%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUju2F-JRy%2B0Updaqw879kbQAfj8WBkQ7z36_%3DLFFnAZ0g%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-17 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 8:26 AM Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

*> Well, this is Machine Learning 101. If you train a model, it will always
> perform better*


Well yes, if a machine couldn't learn then it wouldn't be intelligent!

>> When human beings take an IQ test that is almost certainly NOT the first
>> test they've ever had, and like GPT-4 humans are also trained on a huge
>> amount of data, without it neither you nor GPT-4 would even know how to
>> read the questions.
>
>
> *> Yes, but GPT-4 and human brains are very different things.*
>

They are similar in some ways, they both process information, and they are
different in other ways, one processes information using carbon chemistry
and the other processes information using silicon electronics.

*> GPT-4 has superhuman memory capabilities*
>

Yes


> *> and almost certainly subhuman reasoning capabilities.*
>

If so I've seen no evidence of it, I have however seen evidence that the
opposite is true.


> *> I bet that it would take many human lifetimes to actually read the
> entire training datatset of GPT-4.*
>

I'm sure that's true. Am I supposed to think less of  GPT-4 because of
that?

*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,*
>

It's the same thing if you treat both humans and machines as black boxes
and concentrate on what they do. Like it or not that's the only way we can
deal  with our fellow human beings that we encounter in everyday life, we
have no way of knowing what's going on inside their head, all we can do is
observe their behavior. Maybe Einstein was an idiot but he just had an
ability to push a pen in such a way that he produced brilliant physics
papers, but nobody believes that; instead we would say if somebody could
write physics papers that were as brilliant as Einstein's then that person
would be as smart as Einstein.

It's interesting that until a few years ago the Turing Test was not very
controversial because most thought it would be centuries before a machine
could pass it, and many proclaimed a machine would never be able to pass
it, but now that a machine has indeed passed it they say the Turing Test is
not important, even though they personally still use the Turing Test a 1000
times a day whenever they judge the conscious state of one of their fellow
human beings. Actually if GPT-4 really wanted to fool somebody into
thinking it was a human being it would have to dumb itself down.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


h5z

8bm


>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0pab3tbnTJGL08mKGeJHw1ufW0mR1skgdemMmCaNMWPw%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-17 Thread Telmo Menezes


Am Fr, 17. Mär 2023, um 12:52, schrieb John Clark:
> 
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:45 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> __
> 
>>> >> Forget the Ukraine war, forget climate change, forget Donald Trump, I 
>>> >> now think GPT-4 is by far the most world shaking event and the most 
>>> >> underreported one.  Many of us have been talking about the singularity 
>>> >> for decades, but now it looks like we're on its doorstep. You've got to 
>>> >> look at this video!
>>> 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts) 
>>> 
>> 
>> *> One crucial question here is: did the GPT 4 training set include tests 
>> like the ones being solved?*
> 
> I don't know, GPT-4 is trained on a huge amount of data so probably, but why 
> is that a crucial question? 

Well, this is Machine Learning 101. If you train a model, it will always 
perform better in corpus. Often MUCH better. That is why it is Machine Learning 
101 to divide your dataset into training and testing (usually a 66%/33% or 
75%/25% split). Try to publish a ML learning paper where you evaluate your 
model based on in corpus data and see what they tell you... I am simply 
insisting on the conventional scientific standard of the field to evaluate this 
"≈ 114 IQ" claim.

> When human beings take an IQ test that is almost certainly NOT the first test 
> they've ever had, and like GPT-4 humans are also trained on a huge amount of 
> data, without it neither you nor GPT-4 would even know how to read the 
> questions.

Yes, but GPT-4 and human brains are very different things. GPT-4 has superhuman 
memory capabilities and almost certainly subhuman reasoning capabilities. So 
saying that "ah yes, but humans also see IQ tests before taking one" is 
comparing apples to oranges, firstly beacuse GPT-4 relies much more on brute 
force memorization and secondly because its training corpus can be incredibly 
exhaustive. I strongly suspect that GPT-4 is trained with essentially all 
publically available text ever produced. I bet that it would take many human 
lifetimes to actually read the entire training datatset of GPT-4.

I have a leak of the training data of GPT-2 and that already appears to be the 
case.


>   And speaking of that, in one of those 4 tests humans had deliberately 
> written the questions in such a convoluted way that it was difficult to even 
> know what the question was, much less find the answer,  but GPT-4 got it 
> right nevertheless.  And although GPT-4 can input graphs and diagrams the 
> version that was taking the 4 different IQ tests could not, so whenever an IQ 
> problem contained one of those GPT-4 was automatically marked as getting the 
> answer wrong, and yet even with that severe handicap and even with being 
> unable to contact the Internet it STILL managed to get an IQ of 114 !  And if 
> you had told me in 2021 that a machine would be capable of doing that in 2023 
> I would've said you were crazy.

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, and this is important because it has profound implications on what an 
approach like GPT-4 can be generalized to do and what its fundamental 
limitations are.

Telmo

>  
> 
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 8gw
> 
> 9x
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2-GRdQ5s%2BQ7DbVnR54m1ecwV4ukQMs0_W1%2BnHaH2k0Qg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/18b8d637-3566-44d2-b9c0-ca5f2ebb5796%40app.fastmail.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-17 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:45 AM Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>> Forget the Ukraine war, forget climate change, forget Donald Trump, I
>> now think GPT-4 is by far the most world shaking event and the most
>> underreported one.  Many of us have been talking about the singularity for
>> decades, but now it looks like we're on its doorstep. You've got to look at
>> this video!
>> 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)
>> 
>
>
>
> *> One crucial question here is: did the GPT 4 training set include tests
> like the ones being solved?*
>

I don't know, GPT-4 is trained on a huge amount of data so probably, but
why is that a crucial question?  When human beings take an IQ test that is
almost certainly NOT the first test they've ever had, and like GPT-4 humans
are also trained on a huge amount of data, without it neither you nor GPT-4
would even know how to read the questions.  And speaking of that, in one of
those 4 tests humans had deliberately written the questions in such a
convoluted way that it was difficult to even know what the question was,
much less find the answer,  but GPT-4 got it right nevertheless.  And
although GPT-4 can input graphs and diagrams the version that was taking
the 4 different IQ tests could not, so whenever an IQ problem contained one
of those GPT-4 was automatically marked as getting the answer wrong, and
yet even with that severe handicap and even with being unable to contact
the Internet it STILL managed to get an IQ of 114 !  And if you had told me
in 2021 that a machine would be capable of doing that in 2023 I would've
said you were crazy.

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

8gw

9x

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2-GRdQ5s%2BQ7DbVnR54m1ecwV4ukQMs0_W1%2BnHaH2k0Qg%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-17 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 at 07:37, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> To get to the point, I did advocate for a bit of skepticism for claiming
> consciousness for a computer system, and the retort was from JC that
> essentially, we cannot even define what makes a human conscious, and I am
> going with an au contraries', Pierre! I took me under 10 min to locate a
> worthy article submitted for JC's criticisms.
>
> Here tis'
>
> What Neuroscientists Think, and Don't Think, About Consciousness - PubMed
> (nih.gov) 
>
> So, we are much closer to understand human consciousness. I am ask to to
> put the same effort into how a network developed this in so little time.
> Our our analog chips so mighty in 2022-3???
>

What produces consciousness is consciousness-associated behaviour. If it’s
EM fields (it probably isn’t) then EM fields would have some effect on
behaviour, and if this effect could be replicated by some other means, the
consciousness would also be replicated.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypXKDU7uDj3UHaZXO-0pExsLgbANTcdM76KctK51PvCLSw%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-17 Thread Telmo Menezes


Am Do, 16. Mär 2023, um 18:30, schrieb John Clark:
> Forget the Ukraine war, forget climate change, forget Donald Trump, I now 
> think GPT-4 is by far the most world shaking event and the most underreported 
> one.  Many of us have been talking about the singularity for decades, but now 
> it looks like we're on its doorstep. You've got to look at this video!
> 
> 
> 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts) 
> 

One crucial question here is: did the GPT 4 training set include tests like the 
ones being solved?

Telmo

> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 
> cdk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0SOiZQ3fLU-8fQDX5Zfs6%3Dm5koRbJzRV%2Bdg6E-a-mm%3DA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/544150d3-ff4f-46aa-959f-9acd005f6818%40app.fastmail.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-16 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
To get to the point, I did advocate for a bit of skepticism for claiming 
consciousness for a computer system, and the retort was from JC that 
essentially, we cannot even define what makes a human conscious, and I am going 
with an au contraries', Pierre! I took me under 10 min to locate a worthy 
article submitted for JC's criticisms. 
Here tis'
What Neuroscientists Think, and Don't Think, About Consciousness - PubMed 
(nih.gov)
So, we are much closer to understand human consciousness. I am ask to to put 
the same effort into how a network developed this in so little time. Our our 
analog chips so mighty in 2022-3???

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Thu, Mar 16, 2023 5:55 pm
Subject: Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:50 PM  wrote:


> America executes prisoners for capital murder. So, legally, if a murderer 
> died 50 years ago for a capital crime, does that mean, once, revived, 

To my knowledge no executed prisoner has ever been cryogenically preserved, 
however Joseph Paul Jernigan was executed by lethal injection in 1981 and he 
became part of the "Visible Human Project". His body was sliced into 1871 1 
millimeter thick slices. and each slice was then photographed with a very high 
resolution camera. I've wondered if there was enough information preserved in 
those photographs to upload him, probably not but maybe. You can watch a one 
minute video of a journey through Mr. Jernigan's body here. 
The visible human project - Male (HD)

A few years later they took even higher resolution photographs of a woman who 
died of a heart attack and they used even thinner slices, only 0.33 millimeters 
thick 
Visual Human Project Female 


> they are no longer liable because of Double Jeopardy and that their victims 
> will also be revived? A Civil Case then??

As I've said, I'm not a lawyer.  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  
Extropolis
ws8
u6c




-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Mar 16, 2023 1:30 pm
Subject: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

Forget the Ukraine war, forget climate change, forget Donald Trump, I now think 
GPT-4 is by far the most world shaking event and the most underreported one.  
Many of us have been talking about the singularity for decades, but now it 
looks like we're on its doorstep. You've got to look at this video!

4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2neEP50SN7NCGRqtm1uzwNaE668DFu4-QdQa-OGFei8A%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/382281143.709221.1679006249871%40mail.yahoo.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-16 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
Yes. I actually had, long ago, somebody who contributed their mortal remains to 
science, only, to have one delicious sub-slice winding up in our computer 
graphics class. A diameter slice of their skull. The computer graphics class 
was wasted on myself since artwork was better left for the artists. For the 
contributor, it was no great contribution to science since scientists can also 
be untrustworthy. 
I have a name for the slice I encountered long ago. I thought this being could 
also be a great sidekick, if I could write the comic lines for the voice? 



-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Thu, Mar 16, 2023 5:55 pm
Subject: Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:50 PM  wrote:


> America executes prisoners for capital murder. So, legally, if a murderer 
> died 50 years ago for a capital crime, does that mean, once, revived, 

To my knowledge no executed prisoner has ever been cryogenically preserved, 
however Joseph Paul Jernigan was executed by lethal injection in 1981 and he 
became part of the "Visible Human Project". His body was sliced into 1871 1 
millimeter thick slices. and each slice was then photographed with a very high 
resolution camera. I've wondered if there was enough information preserved in 
those photographs to upload him, probably not but maybe. You can watch a one 
minute video of a journey through Mr. Jernigan's body here. 
The visible human project - Male (HD)

A few years later they took even higher resolution photographs of a woman who 
died of a heart attack and they used even thinner slices, only 0.33 millimeters 
thick 
Visual Human Project Female 


> they are no longer liable because of Double Jeopardy and that their victims 
> will also be revived? A Civil Case then??

As I've said, I'm not a lawyer.  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  
Extropolis
ws8
u6c




-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Mar 16, 2023 1:30 pm
Subject: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

Forget the Ukraine war, forget climate change, forget Donald Trump, I now think 
GPT-4 is by far the most world shaking event and the most underreported one.  
Many of us have been talking about the singularity for decades, but now it 
looks like we're on its doorstep. You've got to look at this video!

4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/120189354.708618.1679005831182%40mail.yahoo.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-16 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:50 PM  wrote:

*> America executes prisoners for capital murder. So, legally, if a
> murderer died 50 years ago for a capital crime, does that mean, once,
> revived, *


To my knowledge no executed prisoner has ever been cryogenically preserved,
however Joseph Paul Jernigan was executed by lethal injection in 1981 and
he became part of the "Visible Human Project". His body was sliced into
1871 1 millimeter thick slices. and each slice was then photographed with a
very high resolution camera. I've wondered if there was enough information
preserved in those photographs to upload him, probably not but maybe. You
can watch a one minute video of a journey through Mr. Jernigan's body here.

The visible human project - Male (HD)


A few years later they took even higher resolution photographs of a woman
who died of a heart attack and they used even thinner slices, only 0.33
millimeters thick

Visual Human Project Female 

*> they are no longer liable because of Double Jeopardy and that their
> victims will also be revived? A Civil Case then??*


As I've said, I'm not a lawyer.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ws8

u6c




> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> Sent: Thu, Mar 16, 2023 1:30 pm
> Subject: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)
>
> Forget the Ukraine war, forget climate change, forget Donald Trump, I now
> think GPT-4 is by far the most world shaking event and the most
> underreported one.  Many of us have been talking about the singularity for
> decades, but now it looks like we're on its doorstep. You've got to look at
> this video!
>
>
> 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)
> 
>
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2neEP50SN7NCGRqtm1uzwNaE668DFu4-QdQa-OGFei8A%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

2023-03-16 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
I have heard this prediction over that last week from other experts, than JC. 
No to 2050/2045 and no to 2030. This also came out in the last 48 hours. 
Kurzweil is an inventor, not a scientist. Having said that he was an inventor.
This might be of interest to JC? Or not?

Humans will achieve immortality in 7 years, says futurist
Humans will achieve immortality in 7 years, says futurist 
(interestingengineering.com)

My wandering thought is, IF TRUE (eyes rolling, tongue in cheek), America 
executes prisoners for capital murder. So, legally, if a murderer died 50 years 
ago for a capital crime, does that mean, once, revived, they are no longer 
liable because of Double Jeopardy and that their victims will also be revived? 
A Civil Case then??
The other thought was a 2nd Hitler War, with Joe Stalin and Mao teamed up 
against the rest of us? Churchill, George Clemenceau, William Tecumseh Sherman 
(strategy that beat The South), José Norton de Matos, and a now militarized 
Ganndhi? If we're all electronic/quantum returnees, how would these wars be 
fought? 





-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Mar 16, 2023 1:30 pm
Subject: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

Forget the Ukraine war, forget climate change, forget Donald Trump, I now think 
GPT-4 is by far the most world shaking event and the most underreported one.  
Many of us have been talking about the singularity for decades, but now it 
looks like we're on its doorstep. You've got to look at this video!

4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

cdk

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0SOiZQ3fLU-8fQDX5Zfs6%3Dm5koRbJzRV%2Bdg6E-a-mm%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1945883138.681055.1678999849749%40mail.yahoo.com.