<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Giovanni Santostasi <gsantostasi@gmail.com> <br><b>…</b><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ExI] all we are is just llms was: RE: e: GPT-4 on its inability to solve the symbol grounding problem<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>>…Also, it seems Bender and Mitchel are quoting and re-tweeting each other often. I guess AGI haters unite! Nice coincidence? Gordon, what is the name of this club?...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Hmmm, those who disagree with the notion that ChatGPT has become conscious are not necessarily AGI haters. I use ChatGPT nearly every day for something and agree it is a marvelous tool. I will agree that I had never thought of consciousness as a continuum, because we humans don’t really have that. We sleep, we wake, and we are conscious. I recognize that there can be something like 0.1 human AGI which can be a little conscious and do some things way better than humans. This is not AGI hating.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I will also note that playing the Turing Test game has become quite popular. If Turing had lived long enough to see this day he would have said “Well chaps, we are there. This software is human-level machine intelligence.” By Turing’s own criterion we are there. If Turing had lived, he would be 111 years old, and he would STILL be smarter than I am now.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>However… I have come to realize that we can have human level general intelligence without actual human level consciousness. This is not AGI hating at all, but rather a realization that consciousness and intelligence are concepts way more difficult to define than I had previously thought. I once believed I fully understood what those terms mean, but now I realize they are far more subtle than I had imagined.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>spike<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>