[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> when i show the output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand, the arguments quickly shift to "it's not real understanding!" and it's honestly very bizarre. What kind of meaningful distinction can't show itself, can't be tested for? If it does exist then it's not meaningful.

I agree with you totally. Here's some output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understanding:

  All men are mortal.
  Socrates is a man.
  Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

I just copy-pasted that from wikipedia. Copy/paste understands syllogisms!

Explain that!

[famouswaffles]

Is this your argument? Really?

I'm Just surprised honestly. All of the straw man arguments, this is the best you can come up with?

Man do better. GPT-4 would have a better response than this.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

I don't understand your derision. Where is the "straw man"? I showed you "output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand[ing]" exactly as you said. How do you explain it, if not by saying it understands, and it can reason?

Are you really just going to cop out and avoid engaging seriously with my question? How do you explain the output above except as reasoning and understanding?

[istjohn]

Here's what GPT-4 would have written:

og_kalu, I understand the point you're trying to make regarding the potential intelligence of GPT-4 and the connection with the philosophical zombie, but I believe there are some important distinctions to consider.

First, it's important to recognize that the goalposts for artificial intelligence have indeed been shifting, and for good reason. As our understanding of intelligence grows, so does our ability to build systems that can mimic it. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that a given AI system, like GPT-4, has truly achieved general intelligence. Instead, it might simply be that our models are becoming more sophisticated and better at solving specific tasks.

The philosophical zombie argument, on the other hand, is concerned with subjective experience and consciousness, rather than intelligence. A philosophical zombie is a hypothetical being that is behaviorally and functionally identical to a human being, but lacks subjective experience. The debate around the philosophical zombie is more about the nature of consciousness and whether it can be separated from intelligence, rather than the intelligence itself.

Now, regarding your assertion that true distinction shows in results, it's true that GPT-4 and similar models have shown impressive capabilities. However, it's crucial not to confuse correlation with causation. Just because an AI system can generate outputs that seem to demonstrate reasoning and understanding, it doesn't necessarily mean that it possesses true understanding. It might simply have learned to generate outputs that are highly correlated with human-generated responses, without any actual understanding or reasoning taking place.

In summary, while it's true that AI systems like GPT-4 are becoming more advanced and able to generate seemingly intelligent responses, it's important to differentiate between the appearance of intelligence and genuine understanding. Furthermore, the philosophical zombie argument is primarily concerned with consciousness, not intelligence, so it may not be entirely relevant in this context.

[famouswaffles]

If you don't see anything up with the nonsensical paragraph you typed then there isn't enough intelligence to continue this conversation. Maybe Ask GPT-4 for help. It has the patience I don't. Either way, this is the end for me. Believe whatever you want, it's none of my business really. Good day.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

If it's so easy to see what's up with what I wrote above, then it should be pretty easy to say what's up with it. You've already written 87 words to dismiss it, but not a single word to say why you dismiss it.

I think that's because you have no idea how to explain why something is, or isn't understanding, or reasoning.

In your comment above you accuse people of not being able to tell you clearly why GPT-4 is not reasoning or understanding, but you, yourself, can't even say clearly why copy/paste isn't. You have no clue how to do that. If you can't even say why something isn't reasoning, or understanding, then how can you say that something is? Do you even know what you're talking about, when you're talking about "reasoning" and "understanding"?

[tanseydavid]

>> I don't understand your derision. Where is the "straw man"?

I find it very difficult to believe at this point that you are arguing in good faith.

Your COPY-PASTE example is nonsensical as already pointed out.

Do you also think that a printing press (or a rubber-stamp for that matter) demonstrates reasoning?

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> Your COPY-PASTE example is nonsensical as already pointed out.

But will you explain why it is nonsensical? Because that has not yet been pointed out.

Lest you forget, here is what the OP said that I replied to:

>> when i show the output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand, the arguments quickly shift to "it's not real understanding!" and it's honestly very bizarre.

I also showed "output" that "clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand[ing]". Why is that nonsensical?

Edit: although it won't be very helpful to discuss this if you're not the OP and don't make the same assumptions as they. But go ahead anyway.

[melagonster]

you belittle a person by call him worse than AI, again and again. it almost like you just want to belittle human being.