So you STILL think that AI understands what it types??

[Sculptor]

Here is a copy&paste direct from ChatGPT.

John Wayne did not play Genghis Khan in any film. However, he did star in a film called "The Conqueror" in 1956, where he portrayed the character of Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan. This casting decision was controversial because Wayne, an American actor known for his Western roles, was not of Mongolian descent, and the film received criticism for its historical inaccuracies and cultural misrepresentation.

Aside from directly contradicting itself in the next sentence, ChatGPT is also guilty of an anachronism in the last two words. IN 1956 acting in a role outside your "culture" (by which is meant race) was common enough, and then no one would have even though of finding a Mongolian to play the role.

Digression: This film demonstrates the poor acting ability of one of Hollywood's "Greatest" actors of his time. Contrast this with Orson Well's or Olivier's Othello; Yule Brenner's King of Siam in The King and I, or just about any role which calls upon actual acting skill to pretend to be another person. Wayne was never enyone else other than Wayne.

[Iwannaplato]

If contradicting oneself/itself demonstrated that one didn't understand what one was writing/saying, there'd be no good claims to understanding things - being conscious.

Just for a laugh I copied the text you quoted and went to Chatgpt and asked it how it could possibly make this contradictory text. It immediately acknowledged there was a contradiction - and then went on to explain possible reasons for the mistake.

That shows more understanding than some posters I presume are humans who manage to deny contradictions to the grave.

That said, I do doubt that any of the publicly accessible AI are conscious. And I don't think the above demonstrates those AI are conscious and understanding in the sense that humans understand things. However, what best AIs out there are capable or 'are', I have no idea. I think the possibility is there that we will develop conscious machines, which will not be programmed in the traditional sense or any sense, but rather learning machines. Or perhaps someone already has. And I damn well hope they are not hooked up to the internet and further have no access to or control over anything physical. Though even that might not be enough to contain them.

Kids playing with fire.

Though the dangers are not restricted to situations where the AIs are actual experiencers.

[Wizard22]

Sculptor, you may want to brush up on your own arguments/threads, before critiquing AI. Humans often make worse mistakes, and more regularly.

[Skepdick]

Here is a copy&paste direct from ChatGPT.

John Wayne did not play Genghis Khan in any film. However, he did star in a film called "The Conqueror" in 1956, where he portrayed the character of Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan. This casting decision was controversial because Wayne, an American actor known for his Western roles, was not of Mongolian descent, and the film received criticism for its historical inaccuracies and cultural misrepresentation.

Aside from directly contradicting itself in the next sentence, ChatGPT is also guilty of an anachronism in the last two words. IN 1956 acting in a role outside your "culture" (by which is meant race) was common enough, and then no one would have even though of finding a Mongolian to play the role.

Digression: This film demonstrates the poor acting ability of one of Hollywood's "Greatest" actors of his time. Contrast this with Orson Well's or Olivier's Othello; Yule Brenner's King of Siam in The King and I, or just about any role which calls upon actual acting skill to pretend to be another person. Wayne was never enyone else other than Wayne.

Why do you put AI to such scrutiny when you can't even convince yourself that you understand what you type?

[Sculptor]

Sculptor, you may want to brush up on your own arguments/threads, before critiquing AI. Humans often make worse mistakes, and more regularly.

I have never seen a human say one thing, then say the opposite in the following sentence.
And even if that were the case your objection is meaningless to this discussion, since it is about AI and not human intelligence.

[Sculptor]

Here is a copy&paste direct from ChatGPT.

John Wayne did not play Genghis Khan in any film. However, he did star in a film called "The Conqueror" in 1956, where he portrayed the character of Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan. This casting decision was controversial because Wayne, an American actor known for his Western roles, was not of Mongolian descent, and the film received criticism for its historical inaccuracies and cultural misrepresentation.

Aside from directly contradicting itself in the next sentence, ChatGPT is also guilty of an anachronism in the last two words. IN 1956 acting in a role outside your "culture" (by which is meant race) was common enough, and then no one would have even though of finding a Mongolian to play the role.

Digression: This film demonstrates the poor acting ability of one of Hollywood's "Greatest" actors of his time. Contrast this with Orson Well's or Olivier's Othello; Yule Brenner's King of Siam in The King and I, or just about any role which calls upon actual acting skill to pretend to be another person. Wayne was never enyone else other than Wayne.

Why do you put AI to such scrutiny when you can't even convince yourself that you understand what you type?

Tip for the Day: Look up "strawman".
Tip 2. jog on!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's no stupider or less self-aware than your bog-standard wonker (who contradict themselves all the time and nothing they say makes any sense) because moronic internet wonkers are who it's learning from. Duh!

[Impenitent]

when Genghis Kahn went down the slide, was that Mongolian descent?

-Imp

[Skepdick]

...since it is about AI and not human intelligence.

I think Scott Aaronson coined the term "meat chauvinism". Your perpetual double standard and discernment between human and non-human intelligence exemplifies it.

From his physics lectures ( https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec4.html )

So, I asked you to read Turing's second famous paper, Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Reactions?

What's the main idea of this paper? As I read it, it's a plea against meat chauvinism. Sure, Turing makes some scientific arguments, some mathematical arguments, some epistemological arguments. But beneath everything else is a moral argument. Namely: if a computer interacted with us in a way that was indistinguishable from a human, then of course we could say the computer wasn't "really" thinking, that it was just a simulation. But on the same grounds, we could also say that other people aren't really thinking, that they merely act as if they're thinking. So what is it that entitles us to go through such intellectual acrobatics in the one case but not the other?

If you'll allow me to editorialize (as if I ever do otherwise...), this moral question, this question of double standards, is really where Searle, Penrose, and every other "strong AI skeptic" comes up empty for me. One can indeed give weighty and compelling arguments against the possibility of thinking machines. The only problem with these arguments is that they're also arguments against the possibility of thinking brains!

So for example: one popular argument is that, if a computer appears to be intelligent, that's merely a reflection of the intelligence of the humans who programmed it. But what if humans' intelligence is just a reflection of the billion-year evolutionary process that gave rise to it? What frustrates me every time I read the AI skeptics is their failure to consider these parallels honestly. The "qualia" and "aboutness" of other people is simply taken for granted. It's only the qualia of machines that's ever in question.

But perhaps a skeptic could retort: I believe other people think because I know I think, and other people look sort of similar to me -- they've also got five fingers, hair in their armpits, etc. But a robot looks different -- it's made of metal, it's got an antenna, it lumbers across the room, etc. So even if the robot acts like it's thinking, who knows? But if I accept this argument, why not go further? Why can't I say, I accept that white people think, but those blacks and Asians, who knows about them? They look too dissimilar from me.

[promethean75]

Turing's right, man. This is crazy.

Say we had a robot that looked and talked just like a human being. We programmed it to mimic human behavior in every way... except we didn't program it to furrow its eyebrows when it was confused by a question posed to it.

Now if we aren't able to experience the qualia, the 'what it is like-ness', of another person's confusion and only call him confused when he exhibits analogous behavior to our own when we are confused - i.e. oh he must be confused becuz he forrowed his eyebrows like i do when I'm confused- furrowing the brows can't constitute proof that someone's confused becuz a) that's an arbitrary behavior, not a representation of the qualia of confusion, and b) the dude could be faking it. Not furrowing his brows on purpose so we don't know he's confused.

If that's the case, we'd not be able to say the robot dude isn't confused unless it forrows its eyebrows.

This is some pretty philosophically freaky stuff, man. U realize what this does to Wittgenstein's 'meaning is use' theory? His 'beetle in a box' thought experiment? Throws it right out the window. I refuse to believe it becuz Wittgenstein was always right. There has to be something we're missing here. Damn why does W have to be dead. We need him now more than ever.

Quick, everybody google 'Wittgenstein on qualia' and report back.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a copy&paste direct from ChatGPT.

John Wayne did not play Genghis Khan in any film. However, he did star in a film called "The Conqueror" in 1956, where he portrayed the character of Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan. This casting decision was controversial because Wayne, an American actor known for his Western roles, was not of Mongolian descent, and the film received criticism for its historical inaccuracies and cultural misrepresentation.

Aside from directly contradicting itself in the next sentence, ChatGPT is also guilty of an anachronism in the last two words. IN 1956 acting in a role outside your "culture" (by which is meant race) was common enough, and then no one would have even though of finding a Mongolian to play the role.

Digression: This film demonstrates the poor acting ability of one of Hollywood's "Greatest" actors of his time. Contrast this with Orson Well's or Olivier's Othello; Yule Brenner's King of Siam in The King and I, or just about any role which calls upon actual acting skill to pretend to be another person. Wayne was never enyone else other than Wayne.

You are insulting your own intelligence with the above in not considering the various perspectives re ChatBot.

At the bottom of ChatGpt, this warning is listed;
"ChatGPT can make mistakes. Consider checking important information."

This is why my default is to qualify ChatGpt [with reservations].
There are pros and cons with AI LLMs, the smart view is to be aware of pros the cons while optimizing the pros and avoid the cons.

[Sculptor]

Here is a copy&paste direct from ChatGPT.

John Wayne did not play Genghis Khan in any film. However, he did star in a film called "The Conqueror" in 1956, where he portrayed the character of Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan. This casting decision was controversial because Wayne, an American actor known for his Western roles, was not of Mongolian descent, and the film received criticism for its historical inaccuracies and cultural misrepresentation.

Aside from directly contradicting itself in the next sentence, ChatGPT is also guilty of an anachronism in the last two words. IN 1956 acting in a role outside your "culture" (by which is meant race) was common enough, and then no one would have even though of finding a Mongolian to play the role.

Digression: This film demonstrates the poor acting ability of one of Hollywood's "Greatest" actors of his time. Contrast this with Orson Well's or Olivier's Othello; Yule Brenner's King of Siam in The King and I, or just about any role which calls upon actual acting skill to pretend to be another person. Wayne was never enyone else other than Wayne.

You are insulting your own intelligence with the above in not considering the various perspectives re ChatBot.

At the bottom of ChatGpt, this warning is listed;
"ChatGPT can make mistakes. Consider checking important information."

This is why my default is to qualify ChatGpt [with reservations].
There are pros and cons with AI LLMs, the smart view is to be aware of pros the cons while optimizing the pros and avoid the cons.

It's exactly like you can't read.

[bahman]

There is no understanding without subjective experience.

[commonsense]

There is no understanding without subjective experience.

Yes, but can anyone prove that a robot has no subjective experience?

[Impenitent]

subjective experience? maybe not a robot, but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_0aIthf_FI

-Imp