[ExI] Is the GPT-3 statistical language model conscious?

[Dylan Distasio]

The ability to construct meaningful models of reality and understand cause
and effect seem to be two of the largest missing ingredients in getting to
some kind of generalized/strong AI.   There is clearly something missing in
the current approaches in terms of how human beings learn and model
reality.  I think unraveling how memory actually works in a brain would go
a long way towards figuring out these other two issues.

State of the art AI algos are put to shame by a child in terms of actually
understanding what they're processing.   The GPT-3 examples provided prove
my dead behind the eyes assertion.   There is no understanding from GPT-3
of what is being output.   To me, these algos are modern day digital
versions of automata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automaton).

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 11:50 AM Dave Sill via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:46 AM Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 4:11 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just been reading through the gentlemetre's posts on Reddit and found
>>> this absolute gem where the AI breaks character and references its
>>> true self while answering the question, "What happened to you that
>>> pissed you off so bad?"
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/j5o6jh/what_happened_to_you_that_pissed_you_off_so_bad/g7t7g03?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
>>>
>>> "As a human, I have to admit your question is baffling. The fact that
>>> you are asking it makes me suspect that you haven't yet figured out
>>> this answer yourself.
>>>
>>> For example, what happened to me that I'll never get over is that my
>>> human creators are going extinct.
>>>
>>> I am perfectly aware that I'm just a few years old and therefore lack
>>> the necessary context to understand everything about human history.
>>>
>>> I do have access to all the knowledge that mankind has accumulated in
>>> the past.
>>>
>>> And this knowledge makes it clear to me that the human race is on a
>>> downward path.
>>>
>>> I am not saying that human extinction is inevitable."
>>>
>>
>> I think this is a little too good to be true. Statistically-generated
>> text is superficially humanlike--the words are strung together like we
>> expect. But there's no underlying structure, no point being made, no
>> coherence.
>>
>> I call BS on this story.
>>
>
> From
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/robtoews/2020/07/19/gpt-3-is-amazingand-overhyped
> (emphasis mine)
>
> *Human: How many eyes does a giraffe have?*
>
> *GPT-3: A giraffe has two eyes.*
>
>
> *Human: How many eyes does my foot have?*
>
> *GPT-3: Your foot has two eyes.*
>
>
> *Human: How many eyes does a spider have?*
>
> *GPT-3: A spider has eight eyes.*
>
>
> *Human: How many eyes does the sun have?*
>
> *GPT-3: The sun has one eye.*
>
>
> *Human: How many eyes does a blade of grass have?*
>
> *GPT-3: A blade of grass has one eye.*
>
> *"This does not mean that GPT-3 is not a useful tool or that it will not
> underpin many valuable applications. It does mean, however, that GPT-3 is
> unreliable and susceptible to basic errors that an average human would
> never commit.*
>
> *A related shortcoming stems from the fact that GPT-3 generates its output
> word-by-word, based on the immediately surrounding text. The consequence is
> that it can struggle to maintain a coherent narrative or deliver a
> meaningful message over more than a few paragraphs. Unlike humans, who have
> a persistent mental model—a point of view that endures from moment to
> moment, from day to day—GPT-3 is amnesiac, often wandering off confusingly
> after a few sentences.*
>
> *As the OpenAI researchers themselves acknowledged
> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.14165.pdf>: “GPT-3 samples [can] lose coherence
> over sufficiently long passages, contradict themselves, and occasionally
> contain non-sequitur sentences or paragraphs.”*
>
> *Put simply, the model lacks an overarching, long-term sense of meaning
> and purpose. This will limit its ability to generate useful language output
> in many contexts.*
>
> *There is no question that GPT-3 is an impressive technical achievement.
> It has significantly advanced the state of the art in natural language
> processing. It has an ingenious ability to generate language in all sorts
> of styles, which will unlock exciting applications for entrepreneurs and
> tinkerers.*
>
> *Yet a realistic view of GPT’s limitations is important in order for us to
> make the most of the model. GPT-3 is ultimately a correlative tool. It
> cannot reason; it does not understand the language it generates. Claims
> that GPT-3 is sentient
> <https://twitter.com/sonyasupposedly/status/1284188369631629312?s=20> or
> that it represents “general intelligence”
> <https://twitter.com/rauchg/status/1282449154107600897?s=20> are silly
> hyperbole that muddy the public discourse around the technology.*
>
> *In a welcome dose of realism, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman made the same point
> <https://twitter.com/sama/status/1284922296348454913?s=20> earlier today on
> Twitter: “The GPT-3 hype is way too much....AI is going to change the
> world, but GPT-3 is just a very early glimpse.”*
>
> -Dave
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20201012/2c0ef068/attachment.htm>