[chimpanzee]

Ah ok. Here you use the word “explain” which implies more of a descriptive, reducing action rather than extrapolative and constructive. As in, it can explain what it has “read” (and it has obviously “read” far more than any human), but it can’t necessarily extrapolate beyond that or use that to find new truths. To me reasoning is more about the extrapolative, truth-finding process, ie “wisdom” from knowledge rather than just knowledge. But maybe my definition of “reasoning” isn’t quite right.

Edit: I probably should define reasoning as solely “deductive reasoning”, in which case, perhaps it is better than humans. But that seems like a premature claim. On the other hand, non-deductive reasoning, I have yet to see from it. I personally can’t imagine how it could do so reliably (from a human perspective) without real-world experiences and perceptions. I’m the sort that believes a true AGI would require a highly-perceptual, space-occupying organ. In other words it would have to be and “feel” embodied, in time and space, in order to perform other forms of reasoning.

[p1esk]

Why don't you suggest an example we can run and see what it's capable of (compared to what I, or other humans, are capable of)?

[chimpanzee]

(In case it was missed, I’ve added a relevant addendum to my previous comment.)

Not sure an example is needed because I agree it “explains” better than pretty much everyone. (From my mostly lay perspective) It essentially uses the prompt as an argument in a probabilistic analysis of its incredibly vast store of prior inputs to transform them into an output that at least superficially satisfies the prompter’s goals. This is cool and useful, to say the least. But this is only one kind of reasoning.

A machine without embodied perceptual experiences simply cannot reason to the full-extent of a human.

(It’s also worth remembering that the prompter (very likely) has far less knowledge of the domain of interest and far less skill with the language of communication, so the prompter is generally quite easily impressed regardless of the truth of the output. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, especially if it is usually accurate. But again, worth remembering.)

[p1esk]

What would be an example of “non-deductive” reasoning, which requires embodied perceptual experiences?

[chimpanzee]

“God, that felt great!”

As detailed as possible, describe what happened.

[p1esk]

I have no idea what happened. I don’t even know what you expect me to describe. Someone feels great about something? And I don’t know what it has to do with reasoning.

[chimpanzee]

That’s the point. You don’t know exactly what happened. So you have to reason your way to an answer, right or wrong.

I’m sure it elicited ideas in your head based on your own experiences. You could then use those ideas to ask questions and get further information. Or you could simply pick an answer and then delve into all the details and sensations involved, creating a story based on what you know about the world and the feelings you’ve had.

I could have created a more involved “prompt story” one with more details but still somewhat vague. You would probably have either jumped straight to a conclusion about what happened or asked further questions.

Something like “He kicked a ball at my face and hit me in the nose. I laughed. He cried.”

Again, vague. But if you’ve been in such a situation you might have a good guess as to what happened and how it felt to the participants. ChatGPT would have no idea whatsoever as it has no feelings of its own with which to begin a guess.

Consider poetry. How can ChatGPT reason about poetry? Poetry is about creating feeling. The content is often beside the point. Many humans “fail” at understanding poetry, especially children, but there are of course many humans that “get it”, escpecially after building up enough life experience. ChatGPT could never get it.

Likewise for psychedelic or spiritual experiences. One can’t explain such experience to one who has never had it and ChatGPT will never have it.

Same goes for all inner experience.