[ExI] GPT-4 on its inability to solve the symbol grounding problem
gsantostasi at gmail.com
Mon Apr 10 04:04:52 UTC 2023
But parrots understand what they are saying in particular if they have the
right training. They can come up with new words and express
original thoughts (like merging words together candy=fruit+sweet that
parrot Einstein invented). Even without training, they know how the words
affect people and they can get attention if they say certain things.
Theory of mind has been tested on GPT-3 and it has the theory of mind of a
9-year-old so more aware than parrots or even ravens. But it is more
complex than that because actually, I think GPT-4 has cognitive abilities
that are even more advanced than certain humans, in particular in given
areas. But this debate will not end maybe even when GPT-N would win the
Nobel prize or write incredible literature because certain people will not
give up their prejudices. Not sure what would be necessary for these people
to convince themselves AI can be conscious.
On Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 7:52 PM Gordon Swobe via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 11:07 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> You and Bender call LLMs "stochastic parrots". Since
>> African gray parrots are approximately as intelligent as 3.5-year-old
>> human children, that would imply that ChatGPT is likewise at least as
>> conscious as a 3.5-year-old human child if not more so.
> The term "Stochastic Parrots" reflects that LLM outputs rely on
> predictions derived from the statistical appearance of words in the text
> used for training. LLMs lack referents for the words, so they can only echo
> them without knowing their meaning, similar to parrots. The term has
> nothing whatsoever to do with the intelligence or consciousness of actual
> That is unless
>> you can specify the difference between intelligence and consciousness,
>> in such a way that humans have consciousness and birds do not.
> Again, the term has nothing to do with actual birds. It is just a bit of
> sarcasm on the part of Bender and her associates.
>> When it comes to the survival of the human race, silliness is
>> preferable to factual inaccuracy. Thus far, I have caught your
>> supposed thought leader Bender in two cringy factual inaccuracies. The
>> first regarding parrots as being models of unconscious stupidity and
>> the second being that octopi don't understand the uses of coconuts
>> which is clearly refuted by this video.
> She was not referring to an actual octopus, either.
> I don't think that your hero Bender understands parrots, octopi,
>> bears, or tropical islands as well as she thinks she does.
> I think you must be joking with me.
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat