|
|
|
|
|
|
by revolvingocelot
1243 days ago
|
|
|
Your twit-xamples compare two different things. ChatGPT can pass exams [0] and IQ tests [1], but that doesn't mean it's a "strong AI", just that it's good at talking -- or, rather, creating text output that humans can ascribe thoughtfulness to, because, hey, it's getting the questions right! As right as someone with an IQ of 83 can, anyway. Whether it's "actually" thinking is another question entirely -- but does that matter?! If it -- or its soon-to-be-created, ever-more-complex descendants -- is good enough at aping a human, it'll probably replace a bunch of human jobs. There probably aren't enough "prompt engineer" positions for all the displaced humans to fill. There's your "change everything" -- it might not be a "strong AI", but if people can argue that Searle's Chinese Room [2] is "actually" talking, and it says useful, monetizable things, then it's close enough to be disruptive. [0] https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/24/chatgpt_exam_study/ [1] https://nitter.1d4.us/sergeyi49013776/status/159843047987885... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room |
|
|