[ExI] GPT-4 on its inability to solve the symbol grounding problem

[Brent Allsop]

I agree with Jason on this.

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 4:54 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023, 6:16 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 1:06 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023, 3:19 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:25 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What do you think would happen to a person whose visual cortex were
>>>>> replaced with a functionally equivalent silicon computer?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As someone who's worked on this concept, and seen results in patients
>>>> where this - more or less - was actually done:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> A) They wouldn't notice and there would be no change in their
>>>>> subjectivity or objectively observable behavior
>>>>> B) They would notice the change in their subjectivity (perhaps
>>>>> noticing a kind of blindness) but they would function the same as before
>>>>> and not say anything
>>>>> C) They would notice the change and they would complain about being
>>>>> blind but would still be able to function as if they can see
>>>>> D) They would notice and become functionally blind, not able to drive,
>>>>> walk without bumping into things, etc.
>>>>> E) Something else
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> B.  An attempt is made at "perfectly functionally equivalent" but that
>>>> ideal has not been achieved in practice.  There is enough of a difference
>>>> to notice.  That said, in all cases I've seen so far the difference has
>>>> been an improvement - not something worth complaining about.  (Granted, the
>>>> cases I've seen have been replacing a broken cortex or other such
>>>> component, giving sight to the formerly blind.  The "functional
>>>> equivalence" comes in for those who lost their sight, attempting to restore
>>>> what they had.  While there are degrees of blindness one could slide down
>>>> in theory - it is possible for some legally blind people to become more
>>>> blind - I have not seen this happen when this procedure is done.)  I
>>>> suppose that might be more in the spirit of C, since they might comment on
>>>> and compliment the difference, but by the literal wording of the choices B
>>>> is closest to the observed results.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, in the cases I've seen, the difference was the point of the
>>>> replacement.  But the results observed suggest that perfect replacement
>>>> would not happen even for direct replacement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's very interesting Adrian. Thanks for sharing your insights.
>>>
>>> What would you imagine would be the outcome if the replacement were
>>> "perfectly functionally equivalent" and performed in a normally sighted
>>> person?
>>>
>>
>> B.  "Perfect" wouldn't be perfect in practice.  There'd be enough
>> difference to notice but it would not be significantly negative.
>>
>
> I think "B" is impossible: if the functional substitution is perfect there
> is no room for the person to notice any difference in their experience. And
> if they did notice a difference they should be able to talk about it, but
> option B says they're unable to mention any difference in their perception,
> as all their outwardly visible behavior is unchanged.
> . Jason
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230412/6deb9426/attachment.htm>