[Joeri]

It is not as if every comment here is a gem of wholly original storytelling. For the most part we’re all just regurgitating other people’s sentences.

Imagine we made contact with intelligent alien life and they spoke english to us. Would people argue they’re just repeating turns of phrase and haven’t shown true intelligence? I feel like we are setting the bar for AI too high. Current AI systems are clearly intelligent.

[DrSiemer]

Up to a degree. There is no real comprehension here.

Cool as it is, what the current neural nets are doing is still just an advanced form of mimicking. Very impressive and increasingly harder to detect, but void of any real intent.

[ElFitz]

> but void of any real intent.

I’m in no way convinced we have actual intelligence in current AI. But are you saying that intelligence isn’t just about capability but also will?

[burrows]

And you’re using what definition of “intent”?

[notahacker]

Any definition of "intent" involving more goals or different levels of abstraction or more presistence than "match given pattern" would suffice.

Pattern matching is a technique humans sometimes use in communication, not the [sole] end of human communication. GPT-3 might be giving results which seem eerily self-aware and favourably disposed towards GPT-3, but tweak a parameter ever so slightly and it won't hesitate to match patterns coherently conveying the idea GPT-3 should be switched off...

[feanaro]

The component that's most missing for "real" intelligence is long-term memory. Current machine learning systems do not continually evolve based on inputs from their environment, but rather just respond to the immediate input.