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?
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?