|
|
|
|
|
|
by myrmidon
1177 days ago
|
|
|
> My point is that this is not thinking, smart, or "general intelligence." Why not? I would already, without hesitation, describe GPT4 as strictly more intelligent than my cat and also all gradeschoolers I've ever known... Maybe some adults, too- depends on your exact definition of intelligence. > Let's say I write an algorithm [...], you can't tell if [input] was produced by GTP-4 or my algorithm. Sure, I'd call your algorithm just as clever as GPT4 and approaching adult human levels of intelligence. > It's still not intelligent, conscious, smart Why not? What do these mean to you? |
|
|
Well if we're going to define intelligence based one what you believe it is then why don't you explain it?
I'm not the one claiming to know what intelligence is or that we can even simulate a system capable of emulating this characteristic. So if you hold the specification for human thought I think you ought to share it with us.
> Why not?
By definition. ChatGPT is designed for a single function, the description of which are the specifications and the code that implements it. Nothing in this specification implies it is capable of anything except what is described.
Calling it, "intelligent," is a mischaracterization at best and anthropomorphism at worst. The same follows for calling it "smart" or claiming it is, "skilled at X."