Moravac (in the linked paper): "In both cases, the evidence for an intelligent mind lies in the machine's performance, not its makeup."
Do you agree?
I'm much less keen to ascribe "intelligence" to large, pretrained language
models given that I know how primitive their training regime is compared to
a scenario where I might have been "blended" by their ability to "chat" (double
quote here since I know ChatGPT and the likes do not have a memory, so all
prior interactions have to be re-submitted with each turn of a conversation).
Intuitively, I'd be more prone to ascribe intelligence based on convincing
ways of construction that go along with intellignece-like performance, especially if the model also makes human-like errors.
Do you agree?
I'm much less keen to ascribe "intelligence" to large, pretrained language models given that I know how primitive their training regime is compared to a scenario where I might have been "blended" by their ability to "chat" (double quote here since I know ChatGPT and the likes do not have a memory, so all prior interactions have to be re-submitted with each turn of a conversation).
Intuitively, I'd be more prone to ascribe intelligence based on convincing ways of construction that go along with intellignece-like performance, especially if the model also makes human-like errors.