You sound like someone that was trying the new bronze tools and was immediately enamored with a bronze hammer on the first day. But, on the second they were very disappointed that the hammer wouldn't cut down a tree.

ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing are tools designed to do something specific. Unfortunately, that specific thing is everything. ChatGPT is built to provide "good" answers. It is not doing this algorithmically, it's doing it probabilistically. It tries to work out the most convincing answer. And it is also working with, effectively, the average thoughts and opinions of Internet users.

A similar but narrowly focused AI trained with a curated training dataset would be much more capable of providing high quality, accurate answers—but that's not what ChatGPT is about. It is precisely about the general, high level answers it is quite good at. The more specific you try to make its answers the less reliable it will be.

There is an ancient saying, I think it was Laotse or maybe Archimedes who said, "GIGO". Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Hi,

Maybe I forgot to read the users manual first
I was told about it from someone and decided to try it out. So my experience with it was gradual and at first I had no idea what it could or couldn't do. I wanted to get a better idea what it was capable of so I decided to test it. That was my only experience with it so far.

 

Hi,

Maybe I forgot to read the users manual first
I was told about it from someone and decided to try it out. So my experience with it was gradual and at first I had no idea what it could or couldn't do. I wanted to get a better idea what it was capable of so I decided to test it. That was my only experience with it so far.

Sure, but: "So at first I may have thought it was human like, but then I realized it was just a big dumb-dumb (ha ha)."

If you met someone who was very good with general knowledge but couldn't answer technical questions reliably, would you doubt their humanity or call them stupid? I doubt it.

If they gave you bad answers, not admitting their lack of knowledge, you might be put out (for good reason) and criticize their lying. This isn't the same as saying they aren't human, or that they are stupid. It's a kind of moral failing, it's antisocial, but it's not a defect in intelligence.

Researchers say ChatGPT "lies and hallucinates". I think the latter part is very important. It might not be lying if it "believes" what it is saying. I blame the humans that created it, and their muddled thinking due to the effects of potential profit. If AI causes a downfall of society, it's not going to be because the ill effects of bad implementations are ignored because the profits are more important.

 

I will believe an AI is sentient when it becomes as cynical as I am.

 

I will believe an AI is sentient when it becomes as cynical as I am.

Oh...an AI that looks for the coffin, when it smells flowers?

 

I will believe an AI is sentient when it becomes as cynical as I am.

 

Sure, but: "So at first I may have thought it was human like, but then I realized it was just a big dumb-dumb (ha ha)."

If you met someone who was very good with general knowledge but couldn't answer technical questions reliably, would you doubt their humanity or call them stupid? I doubt it.

If they gave you bad answers, not admitting their lack of knowledge, you might be put out (for good reason) and criticize their lying. This isn't the same as saying they aren't human, or that they are stupid. It's a kind of moral failing, it's antisocial, but it's not a defect in intelligence.

Hello again,

I think you might be reading too much into my replies.
The context here all along is whether a program acts similar to a human, not if a human acts similar to a human.

It's not really stupid it just can't do what I had hoped it could do. The level of detail is no better than the web itself.

 

Oh...an AI that looks for the coffin, when it smells flowers?

Hi,

Does it recognize that Cosplay isn't real life? ha ha

 

What's not to like about THAT!!

 

It's a great question @wen
My thought is that we as humans are actually very bad at trying to define what we mean as intelligent or sentience,
As has been mentioned, there have been some tests but can we agree that any other animal than us are sentient ?
We as humans seem to have an in built idea, even a bias, that we are special / unique.
It was not that long ago we argued thst no animal was sentient ,
And it seems not that long ago that white people framed different colour people as at best sub human,
So in conclusion, I also feel that we are not going to acknowledge any of these intelligent traits in a machine till its well past it having happened,

 

I will believe an AI is sentient when it becomes as cynical as I am.

Id run with that as an idea , if you can tell us how do we test for that ?

 

It's a great question @wen
My thought is that we as humans are actually very bad at trying to define what we mean as intelligent or sentience,
As has been mentioned, there have been some tests but can we agree that any other animal than us are sentient ?
We as humans seem to have an in built idea, even a bias, that we are special / unique.
It was not that long ago we argued thst no animal was sentient ,
And it seems not that long ago that white people framed different colour people as at best sub human,
So in conclusion, I also feel that we are not going to acknowledge any of these intelligent traits in a machine till its well past it having happened,

There are still people today that think the earth is flat, so sure, there will be deniers to the end but today, with machine AGI, intelligent or sentience IMO the outers are the ones that think we are close while most of the researchers say things like ChatGPT will become dumber as more machine generated data is used to train them.

We are making a Digesting Duck

It eats and can fake good crap. What we have today are good computer engineering models, not a scientific basis for AI to advance with.

 

There are still people today that think the earth is flat, so sure, there will be deniers to the end but today, with machine AGI, intelligent or sentience IMO the outers are the ones that think we are close while most of the researchers say things like ChatGPT will become dumber as more machine generated data is used to train them.

We are making a Digesting Duck

It eats and can fake good crap.

Could you expand on that please
How does a digestive duck answer the op question ?

 

Could you expand on that please
How does a digestive duck answer the op question ?

It shows the difference between engineering to emulate (fake) something we don't understand vs the science needed to actually understand how it works so we can build working systems using that process.

 

OK, how about this scenario.you come up with a computer they can carry on a car coherent count conversation learn new things and come up with original content ( in science or some other field). It even has a sense of humor . How can you definitely say it is not intelligent. Especially if it is much smarter than your average human tests with an IQ of approximately 200 . How do you prove it either way? Just because we are not there yet does not mean we will never be.

 

By the way if we ever do get there I would not call it AI, I would call it a synthetic intelligence. Kind of like synthetic diamonds which are real diamonds they were created in a laboratory.

 

OK, how about this scenario.you come up with a computer they can carry on a car coherent count conversation learn new things and come up with original content ( in science or some other field). It even has a sense of humor . How can you definitely say it is not intelligent. Especially if it is much smarter than your average human tests with an IQ of approximately 200 . How do you prove it either way? Just because we are not there yet does not mean we will never be.

That's pretty rare with actual humans so I don't think that's happening anytime soon with AI.

I would call it "simulated" intelligence today. It's just an illusion.

 

It is my personal belief that we are very very close to that point, and probably won't recognize it when we see it because of human arrogance, of which we have plenty. So the point remains how will we know it when we see it? We already have examples that probably pass the Turing test. Just because we can be fooled does not mean it is intelligent.

Bear in mind, even the most sophisticated AI could theoretically be run on a mechanical computer. May not be very practical of course (or feasible for that matter) but it is nevertheless just a computational problem. So sentience really doesn't have anything to do with it. Any mimicry observed is essentially just a sophisticated "mirage".

 

We now have computers that can drive cars, fly planes, and do basic mathematics with very little input.why is it so far fetched that we got a computer that can meet all of my previous definitions . Turing got part of the answer was his then hypothetical question of the Turing test . We now have machines that can see and here and interpret both in an organized fashion they would make up part of a total brain . Insects are a lot smarter than we tend to think they are solitary bees for example can recognize individual people and we can easily meet the number of neural connections they have with our current technology . This is why I said we have the intelligence offense sex down pat

 

We now have computers that can drive cars, fly planes, and do basic mathematics with very little input.why is it so far fetched that we got a computer that can meet all of my previous definitions . Turing got part of the answer was his then hypothetical question of the Turing test . We now have machines that can see and here and interpret both in an organized fashion they would make up part of a total brain . Insects are a lot smarter than we tend to think they are solitary bees for example can recognize individual people and we can easily meet the number of neural connections they have with our current technology . This is why I said we have the intelligence offense sex down pat

We have machines that can drive cars and fly planes in limited conditions according to rules. When conditions (sometimes in obvious ways to a human) are outside of the rules they tend to fail in rather bad ways because they depend on rules.

Basic mathematics is just rules so that's a trivial task for a computer (or a calculator) designed using math rules to do math.

Intelligence at the human level is the ability to go (quickly adapt to new situations) beyond known rules or current knowledge.

 

We have machines that can drive cars and fly planes in limited conditions according to rules. When conditions (sometimes in obvious ways to a human) are outside of the rules they tend to fail in rather bad ways because they depend on rules.

Basic mathematics is just rules so that's a trivial task for a computer (or a calculator) designed using math rules to do math.

Intelligence at the human level is the ability to go (quickly adapt to new situations) beyond known rules or current knowledge.

Could we use the ability to quickly adapt to new situations beyond known rules or current knowledge as a test for sentience then ?