<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 1:10 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 26/04/2023 18:32,
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat-request@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat-request@lists.extropy.org</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 10:58 AM Ben Zaiboc via
extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto">I wrote to you that in my opinion you
were conflating linguistics and neuroscience. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Actually, you went further than that,
arguing that linguistics is not even the correct
discipline. But you were supposedly refuting my
recent argument which is entirely about what
linguistics — the science of language — can inform
us about language models.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">-gts</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Yes, prior to my question. Which has a point. But you are
still dodging it.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I simply have no interest in it.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
OK, then. That clears that up. You have no interest in even
listening to someone else's argument, much less engaging with it. I
get it.</div></blockquote><div><br>I explained that while your theory of spike trails in the brain and so on is interesting, it tells me nothing about how a digital computer with no brain and no nervous system and no sense organs or sensory apparatus whatsoever can understand the meanings of words merely from analyzing how they appear in relation to one another statistically in the corpus. <br><br>The reality as I see it and <u><i>as GPT-4 itself explains it</i> </u>is that it does not truly understand the meanings of words. We all find that amazing and difficult to believe as the words appear meaningful to us and sometimes even profoundly meaningful, but we as the end-users of this technology are the ones finding/assigning the meanings to the words. GPT-4 is merely generating symbols that it has a high degree of confidence will have meaning to us.<br><br>-gts</div></div></div>