“Understanding” and “interpretation” are themselves nothing more than emergent properties of advanced pattern recognition.
I find it interesting that you bring up insects as your proof of how they differ from artificial intelligence. To me, they are among nature’s most demonstrably clockwork creatures. I find some of their rather predictable “decisions” to some kinds of stimuli to be evidence that they aren’t so different from an AI that responds “without thinking”.
The way you can tease out a response from ChatGPT by leading it by the nose with very specifically worded prompts, or put it on the spot to hallucinate facts that are untrue is, in my mind, no different than how so-called “intelligent” insects can be stopped in their tracks by a harmless line of Sharpie ink, or be made to death spiral with a faulty pheromone trail, or to thrust themselves into the electrified jaws of a bug zapper. In both cases their inner machinations are fundamentally reactionary and thus exploitable.
Stimulus in, action out. Just needs to pass through some wiring that maps the I/O. Whether that wiring is fleshy or metallic doesn’t matter. Any notion of the wiring “thinking” is merely anthropomorphism.
You said it yourself; you as an intelligent being must tease out whatever response you seek out of CharGPT by providing it with the correct stimuli. An insect operates autonomously, even if in simple or predictable ways. The two are very different ways of responding to stimuli even if the results seem similar.
The only difference you seem to be highlighting here is that an AI like ChatGPT is only active when queried while an insect is “always on”. I find this to be an entirely irrelevant detail to the question of whether either one meets criteria of intelligence.
Not at all, you’re just continually dismissing the point.
An insect doesn’t need an actual intelligent being to understand the information being used and to control it or use it, unlike ChatGPT. The latter is just a glorified calculator compared to a living intelligent being.
An insect is an example of intelligence because it is an intelligent being.
An AI is not an example of intelligence because it is not an intelligent being.
And also because it requires another intelligent being to… use… it…? Huh? What do the method by which an AI receives its stimuli and the effects of its responses matter? Such details are external set dressing.
You could just as well slice out an insect’s brain, hook it up to some electrodes, and query it the same way you would ChatGPT. Alternatively, a sufficiently trained AI contained in some hypothetical form factor that could be grafted to the nervous system of an insect would pilot that insect body just as well. No AI we have now is so advanced, but that’s a scale issue, not a principle issue.
The latter is just a glorified calculator compared to a living intelligent being.
I don’t understand how this runs counter to my argument. The living being is itself a glorified calculator. What is the difference, other than scale?
“Understanding” and “interpretation” are themselves nothing more than emergent properties of advanced pattern recognition.
I find it interesting that you bring up insects as your proof of how they differ from artificial intelligence. To me, they are among nature’s most demonstrably clockwork creatures. I find some of their rather predictable “decisions” to some kinds of stimuli to be evidence that they aren’t so different from an AI that responds “without thinking”.
The way you can tease out a response from ChatGPT by leading it by the nose with very specifically worded prompts, or put it on the spot to hallucinate facts that are untrue is, in my mind, no different than how so-called “intelligent” insects can be stopped in their tracks by a harmless line of Sharpie ink, or be made to death spiral with a faulty pheromone trail, or to thrust themselves into the electrified jaws of a bug zapper. In both cases their inner machinations are fundamentally reactionary and thus exploitable.
Stimulus in, action out. Just needs to pass through some wiring that maps the I/O. Whether that wiring is fleshy or metallic doesn’t matter. Any notion of the wiring “thinking” is merely anthropomorphism.
You said it yourself; you as an intelligent being must tease out whatever response you seek out of CharGPT by providing it with the correct stimuli. An insect operates autonomously, even if in simple or predictable ways. The two are very different ways of responding to stimuli even if the results seem similar.
The only difference you seem to be highlighting here is that an AI like ChatGPT is only active when queried while an insect is “always on”. I find this to be an entirely irrelevant detail to the question of whether either one meets criteria of intelligence.
Not at all, you’re just continually dismissing the point.
An insect doesn’t need an actual intelligent being to understand the information being used and to control it or use it, unlike ChatGPT. The latter is just a glorified calculator compared to a living intelligent being.
Your assertions are tautological.
And also because it requires another intelligent being to… use… it…? Huh? What do the method by which an AI receives its stimuli and the effects of its responses matter? Such details are external set dressing.
You could just as well slice out an insect’s brain, hook it up to some electrodes, and query it the same way you would ChatGPT. Alternatively, a sufficiently trained AI contained in some hypothetical form factor that could be grafted to the nervous system of an insect would pilot that insect body just as well. No AI we have now is so advanced, but that’s a scale issue, not a principle issue.
I don’t understand how this runs counter to my argument. The living being is itself a glorified calculator. What is the difference, other than scale?