I appreciate this paper for relatively clearly stating what "human-like" might entail, which in this case involves "reasoning about the causes behind other people's behavior" which is "critical to navigate the social world" as outlined in this citation:
I get frustrated often when people argue "well, it isn't really intelligent" and then give examples that are clearly dependent on our brain's chemical state and our bodies' existence in-the-physical-world.
I get the feeling that when/if we are all enslaved by a super-intelligent AI that we do not understand its motives, we will still argue that it is not intelligent because it doesn't get hungry and it can't prove to us that it has Qualia.
This paper argues that gpts are bad at understanding human risk/reward functions, which seems like a much more explicit way to talk about this, and also casts it in a way that could help reframe the debate about how human evolution and our physical beings might be significantly responsible for the structure of our rational minds.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00100...
I get frustrated often when people argue "well, it isn't really intelligent" and then give examples that are clearly dependent on our brain's chemical state and our bodies' existence in-the-physical-world.
I get the feeling that when/if we are all enslaved by a super-intelligent AI that we do not understand its motives, we will still argue that it is not intelligent because it doesn't get hungry and it can't prove to us that it has Qualia.
This paper argues that gpts are bad at understanding human risk/reward functions, which seems like a much more explicit way to talk about this, and also casts it in a way that could help reframe the debate about how human evolution and our physical beings might be significantly responsible for the structure of our rational minds.