If it looks like they do its reasonable to suggest they do in the same way I don’t know you do I only know it looks like you do. Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it.
AI isn’t just language statistics. The model has the relationships between words. It is knowledge.
At that point I interjected the following:
I agree that it is knowledge. I’ve often noted that a book which contains nothing but printed words obviously contains knowledge. I’ve also noted that the book is not intelligent, no matter how many pages of knowledge it may contain.
But it is also true that the “deep statistics” — by which I mean the statistics represented by sentences of words, paragraphs of sentences, and chapters of paragraphs — can also be fully modeled — purely as statistics — so that the knowledge represented by the detailed words in such a book could be reproduced using just those statistics.
Now, if a query system is added, which allows the relevant portion of that statistically-stored book’s knowledge to be regurgitated, then what we have is a semantic knowledge retrieval system which allows us to query the book’s stored knowledge. If we had never read that book, such a system might stun us with what it says by appearing to “know” so much more than we do. And we might come away from the experience deeply impressed. But even so, that doesn’t change the fact that what we have constructed is a semantic knowledge retrieval system
Are you suggesting that apparent reasoning is becoming an emergent property instead of its own distinct “circuit” of thought?
I wonder how we could test for this. Because that would be fun to test for. And it wouldn’t involve any weird security implications (at least, not directly).
If it looks like they do its reasonable to suggest they do in the same way I don’t know you do I only know it looks like you do. Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it.
Its a “semantic knowledge retrieval system”.
What’s the quoted text from? It doesn’t seem to appear in the article
Sorry, its from Steve Gibson’s podcast “Security Now”. Editing my previous post to include the source.
So you don’t know how it works, but you’re positive that it works in this extremely particular way? That’s a minefield of a stance to take.
Are you suggesting that apparent reasoning is becoming an emergent property instead of its own distinct “circuit” of thought?
I wonder how we could test for this. Because that would be fun to test for. And it wouldn’t involve any weird security implications (at least, not directly).