|
Not in the way a human or AGI could, but it does understand some things in some way. Yes it's trained on TB/PB of data, maybe that's why it can. Maybe it's a mathematical model that outputs token probabilities, and that's why it can. It seems like you're arguing that because it functions in some way, it can't show intelligence or understanding. Arguing that it may look like a duck, quack like a duck, but it's really just a pile of meat and feathers so it can never be a true duck. What am I doing when I learn "idiomatic Python" or "design patterns" or what "rude words" are except being trained on patterns and mimicing other people? I can transfer patterns from one domain to another, so can ChatGPT. I can give an explanation of the pattern I followed, so can ChatGPT. I can notice someone using a pattern wrong and correct them, so can ChatGPT. I can misuse a pattern, have someone explain it to me, and correct myself. So can ChatGPT. I can draw inferences from context from things unsaid or obliquely referenced, so can ChatGPT. > "It re-uses the communication of understanding in its training data but never forms new understanding." Look, here it is forming new understanding; asking it to do some APL: https://i.imgur.com/D3GbwOh.png It gave the wrong answer, I explained in English how to get the right answer, it corrected itself and gave the right answer. That new understanding at least in the short term. If that's "just mimicing understanding" then maybe all I'm doing when I hear an explanation is mimicing understanding. A trivial Markov chain can't generate anything like ChatGPT can, and that's a difference worth attention. |
