[freejazz]

>Looks like reasoning to me. In seriousness, the reason it's able to generate this output is because it does look for explanations.

Yeah, it looks like reasoning, but it isn't, because it's not the reasoning that ChatGPT used - it's just, once again, fitting whatever would be the most likely next word for the situation. It's not using logic or reasoning to do that, it's using statistics.

It's as if you flat out do not understand how ChatGPT works. ChatGPT cannot provide you with reasoning because it does not reason. So asking to provide reasoning, just indicates that you do not understand how ChatGPT works and that you also misunderstood the Op-Ed.

>In outer space, however, the behavior of the apple would be different. In the absence of gravity, the apple would not experience any force pulling it towards the Earth, and would therefore continue to move in a straight line at a constant speed, as per Newton's first law of motion.

>However, it is worth noting that in reality, there is no such thing as "zero gravity" in outer space. While the force of gravity decreases with distance from the Earth, it never truly reaches zero. Additionally, other forces such as the gravitational pull of other celestial bodies, as well as the effects of acceleration and rotation, can influence the motion of objects in space. Therefore, the behavior of the apple in outer space would depend on the specific conditions of its surroundings."

Who fucking cares? The point isn't about zero gravity in space - the point is w/r/t what is happening inside of ChatGPT...

[yunwal]

It’s as if you don’t know how ChatGPT or the human brain works. The correlations are built into a prediction model. Sometimes those predictions can be near certain, which is indistinguishable from human understanding.

You can see this quite clearly when the same neuron lights up for any prompt related to a certain topic. It’s because there’s actual abstraction being done.

[freejazz]

>The correlations are built into a prediction model. Sometimes those predictions can be near certain, which is indistinguishable from human understanding.

This is quite literally not what the word understanding means, and trying to use my words against me in this way just makes you seem smarmy and butthurt. And if you are going to converse with me like that, I'm not going to engage when your material is a) pointed and aggressive, and b) completely non-responsive to what I wrote.

>You can see this quite clearly when the same neuron lights up for any prompt related to a certain topic. It’s because there’s actual abstraction being done.

Um, what?

[yunwal]

> Um, what?

Gotcha you're not actually interested in conversation

[freejazz]

No, I literally have no idea what you are talking about and how could I? What a projection

[yunwal]

https://openai.com/research/multimodal-neurons

When you ask a question to a human that has to do with a concept - in the above article it's Halle Berry because it's a funny discovery, but it could be as broad as science - you can often map those concepts to specific neurons or groups of neurons. Even if the question you ask them doesn't contain the word "science", it still lights up that neuron if it's about science. The same is true of neural networks. They eventually develop neurons that mean something, conceptually.

It's not always true that the neurons that neural network's develop are the same ones that humans have developed, but it is true that they aren't thinking purely in words, they have a map of how concepts relate and interact with one another. That's a type of meaning and it's a real model of the world, not the same one we have, and it's not even close to perfect, but neither is ours.

[freejazz]

> they have a map of how concepts relate and interact with one another

Yeah but not one that operates how Chomsky described. It can't tell you if the earth is flat or not. Humans figured it out. ChatGPT can only tell you what other humans already said. It doesn't matter that it does so based on a neural net. You completely missed the point.

[8note]

I agree with you, but I'm not sure if it matters, and we could say the same thing about a person. We cannot prove that a human reasons, only that they output text that looks like it could be reasoning

[freejazz]

No, you can't say the same thing as a person because a person can express reasoning. ChatGPT can't, because it can't reason. You may ask yourself, "wow, is there perhaps a magical algorithm in humans capable of reasoning that is the ultimate source of what emanated from this other person, being that I'm not actually sure everyone else is real?" - that's totally different from what's going on with ChatGPT when it just puts out more dreck, but arbitrarily states "this is reasoning". Like, try and read the article - he deals with this point EXACTLY.