[ExI] Is the GPT-3 statistical language model conscious?
sparge at gmail.com
Mon Oct 12 15:49:46 UTC 2020
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?"
>> "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.
*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
*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
*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
*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
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.”*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat