[wizeman]

I really don't understand the argument you're making. From my perspective, you're doing exactly what I said: you're setting a double standard, like the previous poster.

If I have a robot that talks like a human, including answering questions like a human, behaves like a human in any way that is important... wouldn't this "tool" be intelligent, just like a human?

How are robots different from ChatGPT except having a physical presence and being able to manipulate the world physically?

Or are humans so special to you (or intelligence so subjective) that you can't possibly answer "yes" to the above statement about a robot being intelligent?

[skor]

what you are saying here basically is: if it quacks and can fly, it’s obviously a duck.

[wizeman]

No, because I'm not saying robots are human just because they're intelligent.

The analogy is more like: if robots can write like a human, then robots have the ability to write, and saying otherwise is just applying a double standard.

Similarly, if a robot can behave as intelligently as a human, then such a robot is intelligent and I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise without logical fallacies.

[skor]

ok, no argument from me on that.

but are we saying robots can behave intelligently as a human?

[wizeman]

> but are we saying robots can behave intelligently as a human?

I believe that ChatGPT can behave more intelligently than most humans at many important and useful tasks already.

I also believe that it behaves less intelligently than most humans at many tasks that are also important and useful.

For some other tasks, it behaves at more or less the same level as a human.

Moreover, I believe that the gaps between what models like ChatGPT can do and what a human can do are closing extremely rapidly.

[jiriro]

You ChatGPT? :)

[cvladan]

:)