AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 117
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
To be able to behave intelligently, the system needs to have within itself a model of the environment whose situation is being investigated.
If ChatGPT does not create such a model for itself, then the presence of reason in it is out of the question.... And its price is corresponding...
I will reply to this post tomorrow.
What positive outcome are we talking about? For a particular individual or for its species, of which it is a representative? Because the whole history of development of life on Earth, in general, has always been reduced to the availability of offspring (in a competitive environment, this already includes the task to survive and "thrive", as well as to give offspring evolutionary development). And for individuals, hmm... If it is an intelligent being, i.e. it is a subject with its own understanding of what is happening, then the "goals of life" can be surprisingly different. What do you think?
In the post, I touch on the role of the dialectical law of unity and struggle of opposites in this context. A system has to alternately struggle and unite with other systems, depending on the demands and conditions of the environment. I emphasise that the desire for survival, development, prosperity and progeny is a universal sign of intelligence, but the difference between primitive systems and developed systems is only in the level of intelligence. Even the most primitive representatives of fauna are subjective, and they cannot be made to "forget" their "goals". From this point of view, they are quite "reasonable". It seems to me that the degree of comprehension of themselves and the world is another issue that requires a separate consideration. I have only emphasised the universality of the principles of rationality, which is quite inherent even in unintelligent beings.
At the moment, AI does not meet the criteria of reasonableness described above, which even the simplest terrestrial organisms meet.
And the principle of reasonableness here will be one single thing - it will be to prevent it from being trained with motives so that it remains a vegetable.
2. I think you will agree that the behaviour of a system that produces a positive result is not a sign of reasonableness or subjectivity by default. A simple optimisation program strives for a positive result and cannot be called anything but a program.
...
No serious interlocutor would call you "reasonable" a system that constantly screws up or idles stupidly. ... So, it is impossible for a system claiming to be "Intelligence" to run without positive results....
A simple optimisation program is not relevant here, because its work is a product of the developer's activity,... just his tool, with the help of which the developer (and not the program) expects to get the very positive result.
So it turns out that if the word "Mind" is inserted in the name, then, according to its original meaning, it should declare a sufficiently high positive result of realisation of the solutions generated by the system.
Otherwise, it's just a tricked-out Arduinka... with a multicoloured LED panel on board
No serious interlocutor will call you "reasonable" a constantly failing or idle system.... So, it is impossible for a system claiming to be "Reason" to work without positive results....
A simple optimisation program is not relevant here, because its work is a product of the developer's activity... just his tool, with the help of which the developer (not the program) expects to get the very positive result.
So, if the word "Intelligence" is inserted in the name, then, according to its original meaning, it should declare a rather high positive result of realisation of the solutions generated by the system.
Otherwise, it's just a tricked-out Arduinka... with a multi-coloured LED panel on board.
I will assume that if the work of the system does not include extraction, protection and investment of resources in the realisation of its own tasks, it serves as a tool for securing other people's interests, and in this case, the positive result of its work proves not reasonableness but usefulness.
Well, let's give it a try....
The point is that your words "... if the work of the system does not include extraction, protection and investment of resources in the realisation of its own tasks, it serves as a tool for securing other people's interests, and in this case, the positive result of its work proves not reasonableness, but usefulness..." are perfectly suitable for tools performing any other work than processing information in order to determine the best way to achieve the goal.
The characterisation expressed by the word 'reasonable' has been used by people exclusively to describe the potential of decisions made.... and precisely in the sense of an expected or already achieved result.
Thus, it would be wrong to use the word in any other way. (logically).
Well, let's give it a go...
The point is that your words "... if the work of the system does not include extraction, protection and investment of resources in the realisation of its own tasks, it serves as a tool for securing other people's interests, and in this case, the positive result of its work proves not reasonableness, but usefulness..." are perfectly suitable for tools performing any other work than processing information in order to determine the best way to achieve the goal.
The characterisation expressed by the word 'reasonable' has been used by people exclusively to describe the potential of decisions made.... and specifically in the sense of an expected or already achieved result.
Thus, it would be wrong to use the word in any other way. (logically).
I have a rough idea of the system and goals you have in mind. I'm sure they are relevant to the field of intelligence. Your point can be described by saying"if a system effectively solves the goals of intelligence, it can be called intelligent, according to the original meaning of the term". I agree. If the word originally stated a high potential of decisions (in the sense of expected or obtained result), then you are right.
I am not a great expert in linguistics or etymology of words, but I am sure that at the time of origin of this notion, the question:"at the level of solving what tasks, machines can be considered reasonable?" was not asked by anyone.)) Plus, words have a way of changing or expanding the semantic field. I find it difficult to reduce intelligence to"efficient processing of information in order to determine the best way to achieve a goal". Some kind of "flawed" mind, it turns out. Don't you think? ))
I have a rough idea of the system and goals you have in mind. I am sure they are relevant to the field of intelligence. Your point can be described by the wording"if a system effectively solves the goals of intelligence, it can be called intelligent, according to the original meaning of the term". I agree. If the word originally stated a high potential of decisions (in the sense of expected or obtained result), then you are right.
I am not a great expert in linguistics or etymology of words, but I am sure that at the time of origin of this notion, the question:"at the level of solving what tasks, machines can be considered reasonable?" was not asked by anyone.)) Plus, words have a way of changing or expanding the semantic field. I find it difficult to reduce intelligence to"efficient processing of information in order to determine the best way to achieve a goal". Some kind of "flawed" mind, it turns out. Don't you think? ))
That's a very interesting question. Very...
You're the first person to ask it, except for me.
And here is what I got when trying to answer it....
I used a well-known technique: I took away from the system (including the human being) the MESSAGE of all its operations on information...
The meaning.... That is, the very result, the expectation of which is the purpose of the "brewed porridge".
Further, I think, it is possible even not to tell.
Most likely, everyone who reads these words, immediately in the consciousness has drawn a picture: meaningless, aimless,... without any positive result of actions,... gestures, sounds, deeds...
Looking at such a thing,... an attempt to insert the word "reason" somewhere there - I was unsuccessful.
Maybe someone can find it there,...somewhere,...further,...in the great,...depths of the essence...
But, I, purely a sixth sense, advised me not to even think about it.
How about you?
***
Further, I think, it is possible even not to tell.
Most likely at everyone who reads these words, immediately in consciousness has drawn a picture: senseless, aimless,... without any positive result of actions,... gestures, sounds, deeds...
Looking at such,... an attempt to insert there somewhere the word "reason" - I have not succeeded.
Maybe someone will be able to find it there,...somewhere,...further,...in the great,...depth of the essence...
But my purely sixth sense advised me not to even think about it.
***
Then if not to set the purpose of the mind - the achievement of goals, then at least there are needs, as according to Maslow, where the first primary needs are food, survival.
I guess for thinking AI should come up with its own motor Maslow pyramid.
Also, the first thing that comes to mind is curiosity and seeking its own limits, perfection. Like children, before the first signs of mental strengthening. Apparently it's below the first rung of the pyramid.
And such a thing, if programmed into a robot, we will get a moving machine, cognising the world from scratch, walking on the steps of Maslow's motor. What is not Reason (someday with more perfect AI). As for free will, even in humans, it is questionable. It's either a random of actions in the current situation, or a test of one's own sanity, which is also a random.
Very interesting question... Very...
You're the first person to ask it, except for me.
And this is what I got when I tried to answer it...
I used a well-known technique: I took away from the system (including a human being) the MESSAGE of all its operations over information...
Meaning.... That is, the very result, the expectation of which is the purpose of the "porridge being brewed".
Further, I think, it is possible even not to tell.
Most likely, everyone who reads these words, immediately in the consciousness has a picture: meaningless, aimless,... without any positive result of actions,... gestures, sounds, deeds...
Looking at such,... an attempt to insert the word "reason" somewhere there - I was not successful.
Maybe someone will be able to find it there,...somewhere,...further,...in the great,...depth of the essence...
But, I was advised by a purely sixth sense not to even think about it.
How about you?
Of course, we can joke about it, but the question of reasonableness does not disappear and becomes more relevant every day. We have to dive into philosophy and look for answers. What system can be considered reasonable? What tasks solution proves the presence of consciousness? What will the development of AI lead to?.... and so on.
Intelligent, in a certain aspect, means rational. Rationality can be instinct, reflex, or artificial preset, and does not always have "documentation" with it. From this perspective, primitive organisms are "rational" if the environment has not destroyed them. And to that extent, they are "rational".
I believe reason evolutionarily "grows" from rationality, like a tree from a sprout, and its main feature is self-awareness. The ability to explain itself. Rationality is reflected in instincts, reflexes and survival rules of systems, and is passed on through generations in the process of natural selection. Systems are relentlessly tested for stability and adaptability by the environment, accumulating more properties and defence mechanisms. Gradually, they become so complex that they become capable of realising themselves and explaining the evolutionarily accumulated rationality. And that is Reason.