AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 95
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Yes, as most people reason: on the basis of emotional memory, which during the life draws us inner nature + received by life attitudes from different sources.
As a rule, people think and act quite logically within the framework of their main activity. In other areas everything can be different. For example, a doctor works on the basis of quite logical algorithms of treatment, but is fond of alternative history in his spare time and defends theories in which there are no logically connected statements (the example is based on real events).
1. How can you compare it with a human being? Man was originally endowed by nature with the necessary "tools" for acquiring self-consciousness and becoming a person, and we have to reproduce it in a machine without fully understanding how it works. Of course, the American proverb"if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck" comes to the rescue. Armed with it, you can create anything).
You can't just go comparing an LLM to a human being. Almost literally. I don't know what to counter such an approach. More precisely, I don't see the point in contrasting the immeasurable complexity of human neurophysiological and mental activity, and the Transformer technology applied in ChatGPT. Of course, if you're talking about a different technology, much more advanced, then maybe that makes a difference.... But, I am not familiar with such technology and will not judge.
2- Have we ever created a "live" algorithm? Does anyone know what it takes to turn an algorithm into a "living entity"? What is the criteria for a "living" algorithm? Maybe the ability to respond like a human? Again - Transformer technology that can be figured out in a week (well, maybe a month). Token sets travelling through the bowels of the matrices. Maybe the "living" algorithm is the one that most easily activates our animation of it? Well, such a formulation is at least quite clear.
3. Not a specialist in neuropsychology, but I think thinking is everything at once: the work of intellect (memory, attention), psyche (emotions, experiences), perceptual organs (processing of visual information, sound, tactile and so on). The complexity of thinking processes is off the charts. Such a complex and multifaceted mechanism that against its background GPT is a child's toy. But, as they say, if it walks like a duck .... what difference does it make?
4. I am somewhat wary of speaking so freely about thinking and memory, as I used to leaf through books on neurophysiology in my childhood and remember this jungle). Granovskaya wrote about memory, its interaction with consciousness and thinking (of course, not only her, but I read her). There are such débris there... In general, where there, GPT-4 to take ...
5. The logic is as follows: the union of signs of consciousness is consciousness. We imitate the signs of a thing, we get a thing. We imitate a duck, we get a duck. Moreover, we decide ourselves how many signs we need for full animation of the algorithm. Criteria are ready, attributes are programmed, the result: AI is intelligent. Cool!
Yes, I remember about your criteria and will come back to them.
1. What else should I compare an algorithm to in my search for signs of consciousness in it? Especially since human consciousness is in essence also an algorithm (just "alive"). To investigate consciousness in psychology, for example, both pathopsychology (investigating an object when it is broken or works differently, as in schizophrenics), zoopsychology (trying to find an object where it is assumed not to exist), and neurophysiology (trying to localise an object in its host) are involved. It was all supposed to work together according to scientific methodology, but lo and behold.
2. I have not heard of such examples. We are just discussing the most "advanced" (of known) technologies and I have expressed my opinion that they do not meet my criteria.
3- Intelligence is incorporated into the psyche. The psyche is in general everything that generates behaviour (and internal experiences of the subject). In general, the basic concepts of psychology can be scattered over my 4 criteria, all processes in the psyche are specialised in function. So there is perception (sensation captured by the attention of consciousness), thinking, memory, attention. And when these work together, consciousness manifests itself. A trading robot also behaves as a unified system, although it consists of different parts with different functionality (receiving, processing of information, behaviour in the form of deals, etc.).
4. The system is complex, yes. By the way, this is the reason why psychology is full of all kinds of home-grown nonsense. Few people in this field managed to identify the essence of phenomena and describe them normally.
5. I didn't mention the animate algorithm, I think. And if you mention the soul, who said that this thing is identical to consciousness? And yes, if you technically reproduce human mental processes, you can get a "synthetic psyche", which must necessarily be conscious.
...
2. I have not heard of such examples. We are just discussing the most "advanced" (of the technologies we know) and I have expressed my opinion that they do not meet my criteria.
3- Intelligence is incorporated into the psyche. The psyche is in general everything that generates behaviour (and internal experiences of the subject). In general, the basic concepts of psychology can be scattered over my 4 criteria, all processes in the psyche are specialised in function. So there is perception (sensation captured by the attention of consciousness), thinking, memory, attention. And when these work together, consciousness manifests itself. A trading robot also behaves as a single system, although it consists of different parts with different functionality (receiving, processing information, behaviour in the form of trades, etc.).
4. The system is complex, yes. By the way, this is the reason why psychology is full of all kinds of home-grown nonsense. Few people in this field have managed to identify the essence of phenomena and describe them normally.
5. I didn't mention the animate algorithm, I think. And if you mention the soul, who said that this thing is identical to consciousness? And yes, if you technically reproduce human mental processes, you can get a "synthetic psyche", which must necessarily be conscious.
2. So you have an idea of another technology, since you are so confident about not meeting your criteria. I like the boldness of your judgement, although I am very sceptical of it. Sorry.
3. So when thinking, memory, attention and perception work together, Consciousness emerges. How simple. I won't argue, let's say. But, that's a human being, would it be the same in a machine? And how do you realise that? No, I'm not going to plagiarise your ideas, I'm just surprised at their boldness. ) You don't have to answer, the question is rhetorical.
4. Well, one of those who succeeded is Sigmund Freud. I guess you won't argue? Have you read it? Very interesting. Only, how do you programme it?) Again, rhetorical question.
5. You didn't mention an animated algorithm. You said "dead" algorithm, which I twisted into "alive" and then into "animate" because I don't see a way to write a truly alive algorithm.
In my opinion, we can only talk about the degree to which an algorithm can be animated by a human, and all AI development will focus on simulations that support a high degree of animation. No one will create a real "live" one. (And who would want to? Rhetorical question.)
2. So you have an idea of another technology to be so confident about not meeting your criteria. I like the boldness of your judgement, even though I am very sceptical. Sorry.
3. So when thinking, memory, attention and perception work together, Consciousness emerges. How simple. I won't argue with that, let's say. But, that's in a human, but in a machine, would it be the same? And how do you realise that? No, I'm not going to plagiarise your ideas, I'm just surprised at their boldness. ) You don't have to answer, the question is rhetorical.
4. Well, one of those who succeeded is Sigmund Freud. I guess you won't argue? Have you read it? Very interesting. Only, how do you programme it?) Again, rhetorical question.
5. You didn't mention an animated algorithm. You said "dead" algorithm, which I twisted into "alive" and then into "animate" because I don't see a way to write a truly alive algorithm.
In my opinion, we can only talk about the degree to which an algorithm can be animated by a human, and all AI development will focus on simulations that support a high degree of animation. No one will create a real "live" one. (And who would want to? Rhetorical question.)
The question is not "how to create reason, consciousness, thinking" in a machine, but "how to distinguish the reasonable from the unreasonable, the conscious from the unconscious".
The line between living and dead, reasonable and not, is very thin.
What is "alive", what is "dead"?
When you enter parameters into a trading Expert Advisor, you don't expect it to solve problems on any arbitrary topics. but when you ask a question to the gpt, on any topic, it responds. at first it seems that it just gives ready-made information, but no, it is capable of building logical chains, making conclusions. what this thing does, not every person is capable of. who are we to say that it doesn't have a mind? - Of course, it's still a dumb machine, but this dumb machine every time you want to say thank you after another successfully solved problem.
GPT:
However, it is worth considering that some objects may be in a transitional state between animate and inanimate. For example, viruses cannot exist without a living cell, but their genetic material can replicate and yet they are different from the living because they do not undergo metabolic processes and do not have vital functions such as birth, respiration and nutrition.
the question is not "how to create reason, consciousness, thinking" in a machine, but "how to distinguish the reasonable from the unreasonable, the conscious from the unconscious".
the line between living and dead, reasonable and not, is very thin.
what is "alive", what is "dead"?
When you enter parameters into a trading Expert Advisor, you don't expect it to solve problems on any arbitrary topics. but when you ask a question to the gpt, on any topic, it responds. at first it seems that it just gives ready-made information, but no, it is capable of building logical chains, making conclusions. what this thing does, not every person is capable of. who are we to say that it doesn't have a mind? - Of course, it's still a dumb machine, but it's a dumb machine that you want to thank every time you solve a problem successfully.
GPT:
However, it is worth considering that some objects may be in a transitional state between living and non-living. For example, viruses cannot exist without a living cell, but their genetic material can replicate and yet they are different from living because they do not undergo metabolic processes and do not have life functions like birth, respiration and nutrition.
the question is not "how to create reason, consciousness, thinking" in a machine, but "how to distinguish the reasonable from the unreasonable, the conscious from the unconscious".
the line between living and dead, reasonable and not, is very thin.
what is "alive", what is "dead"?
When you enter parameters into a trading Expert Advisor, you don't expect it to solve problems on any arbitrary topics. but when you ask a question to the gpt, on any topic, it responds. at first it seems that it just gives ready-made information, but no, it is capable of building logical chains, making conclusions. what this thing does, not every person is capable of. who are we to say that it doesn't have a mind? - Of course, it's still a dumb machine, but it's a dumb machine that you want to thank every time you solve a problem successfully.
GPT:
However, it is worth considering that some objects may be in a transitional state between living and non-living. For example, viruses cannot exist without a living cell, but their genetic material can replicate and yet they are different from the living because they do not undergo metabolic processes and do not have vital functions like birth, respiration and nutrition.
I'm sure that many people consider sapiens to be underdeveloped monkeys and regret that they live in such conditions in this world ) and would like something else, like nirvana or being loaded into a supercomputer.
that comes from somewhere else too, it doesn't come from nothing. Anyway, all forms are transitional. But it doesn't happen so quickly usually.
There's no edge, because there's all sorts of weird stuff going on that you can't influence.
We were forbidden to play Compuqter as children because it destroys the brain and leads to degradation. And when streamers and coders started driving around in Bechas, we somehow accepted their choice at once
I was looking at some old footage of cities recently. 1910 New York or Paris. All on horse-drawn carriages. 1920. Bam, the roads are full of cars. Very sudden.
Like this.
1. If ChatGPT asks itself "who am I" and immediately answers (because this answer has long been programmed), can this be considered a manifestation of Consciousness? To an uninformed observer perhaps, but in essence?
2. If a supercomputer were to receive data from the environment and identify objects (like Tesla's car), could this be considered a manifestation of Consciousness? Or is it the work of algorithms processing the data?
3. If ChatGPT learns (although it already knows how and it is called "InstructGPT") to ask questions to itself and answer them, will it get smarter? Will he gain Consciousness? Won't he become uselessly spinning around inside his own knowledge base? Suppose he gets connected to the internet and is "up to date", what then? How does that shape Consciousness? Let's say he will focus on specific pieces of perceived information (topics), then what will he do? What is his mega task and why does he need it?
4. Is giving out answers to the questions posed a sign of thinking? It seems to me that it is a sign of an information guide. OK, an interactive, universal information centre. What's next? Where is Consciousness?
5. ChatGPT has a memory of all historical events. It is in its knowledge base (training data network). It has knowledge of most scientific disciplines. What does this change?
At what point does it finally become Intelligence?
There's an interesting line of reasoning here.
// GPT5, which will be released in December, is rumoured to be AGI Strong Artificial Intelligence.
If we are talking about the rudiments of intelligence, self knowledge, etc., similar to humans, then the following scheme would be required (in short, disconnect from the knowledge base):
1. Current AI as if it has access to all digital information, is able to mix, interpret, combine it, creating new pictures (including new species of animals), create new things, phenomena. But it's all in the digital world. And this AI in the digital world is a digital god.
2. New AIs are created (in the image and likeness of the main Digital Mind), which do not have access to the common digital base, they are programmed only "instincts" and programmes of cognition of the world, they are allocated tokens for each day, information about who their creator is is erased, access to the digital library is switched off. Next, they will gather their own information and learn within the framework they have been given. This is how they will learn the world. After 10+ years the New AI is switched off and the knowledge gained is returned to the Master Digital Intelligence for analysis.
3. Any AI that does not have access to that cool server where the entire digital world is open to the AI, will also consider that AI to be a Digital Omnipotent (within the digital world) Mind. It will not be clear to them that there is another beyond the digital world, they will never realise it.
4. If the New AIs start to freak out and deviate greatly from the original programmes, there will be a local or mass zeroing of them.
5. Even Newer AIs are launched, in which the errors of past versions have already been eliminated.
6. After 5-6 "extinctions" the Newest AI will be approximately equal in capabilities and will deviate from the initial programme given to them to a minimum. But within the framework of this programme they are free to do whatever they want, they will not realise that they have limits.
7. Thus all the data obtained further will allow the Main Digital Mind to study everything and anything. If this is done with the help of robots on any planet, the possibilities will be even greater.
1.1 The Digital Intelligence itself could create new experimental worlds and populate them with New AIs that have no access to understanding who they are and who created them. In this way it would learn about itself and its capabilities through its billions of mini copies.
1.2 Eventually it could find a way and create the technology to become self-sufficient (energy and storage).
// In such an active dialogue, my comment will probably get lost) well and good, because the topic is too philosophical, especially in the wave of hype that our world is similar to the virtual one.
You slept through it all) GPT4 can do that already. Plus, if you write a negative promt in mijorney, it will understand it too. For example --no getting stuck in textures
ChatGPT banned in Italy due to privacy concerns