> America executes prisoners for capital murder. So, legally, if a murderer died 50 years ago for a capital crime, does that mean, once, revived,
> they are no longer liable because of Double Jeopardy and that their victims will also be revived? A Civil Case then??
Forget the Ukraine war, forget climate change, forget Donald Trump, I now think GPT-4 is by far the most world shaking event and the most underreported one. Many of us have been talking about the singularity for decades, but now it looks like we're on its doorstep. You've got to look at this video!
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0SOiZQ3fLU-8fQDX5Zfs6%3Dm5koRbJzRV%2Bdg6E-a-mm%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
To get to the point, I did advocate for a bit of skepticism for claiming consciousness for a computer system, and the retort was from JC that essentially, we cannot even define what makes a human conscious, and I am going with an au contraries', Pierre! I took me under 10 min to locate a worthy article submitted for JC's criticisms.
Here tis'
So, we are much closer to understand human consciousness. I am ask to to put the same effort into how a network developed this in so little time. Our our analog chips so mighty in 2022-3???
>> Forget the Ukraine war, forget climate change, forget Donald Trump, I now think GPT-4 is by far the most world shaking event and the most underreported one. Many of us have been talking about the singularity for decades, but now it looks like we're on its doorstep. You've got to look at this video!
4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)> One crucial question here is: did the GPT 4 training set include tests like the ones being solved?
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:45 AM Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.net> wrote:>> Forget the Ukraine war, forget climate change, forget Donald Trump, I now think GPT-4 is by far the most world shaking event and the most underreported one. Many of us have been talking about the singularity for decades, but now it looks like we're on its doorstep. You've got to look at this video!
4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)> One crucial question here is: did the GPT 4 training set include tests like the ones being solved?I don't know, GPT-4 is trained on a huge amount of data so probably, but why is that a crucial question?
When human beings take an IQ test that is almost certainly NOT the first test they've ever had, and like GPT-4 humans are also trained on a huge amount of data, without it neither you nor GPT-4 would even know how to read the questions.
And speaking of that, in one of those 4 tests humans had deliberately written the questions in such a convoluted way that it was difficult to even know what the question was, much less find the answer, but GPT-4 got it right nevertheless. And although GPT-4 can input graphs and diagrams the version that was taking the 4 different IQ tests could not, so whenever an IQ problem contained one of those GPT-4 was automatically marked as getting the answer wrong, and yet even with that severe handicap and even with being unable to contact the Internet it STILL managed to get an IQ of 114 ! And if you had told me in 2021 that a machine would be capable of doing that in 2023 I would've said you were crazy.
9x
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2-GRdQ5s%2BQ7DbVnR54m1ecwV4ukQMs0_W1%2BnHaH2k0Qg%40mail.gmail.com.
> Well, this is Machine Learning 101. If you train a model, it will always perform better
>> When human beings take an IQ test that is almost certainly NOT the first test they've ever had, and like GPT-4 humans are also trained on a huge amount of data, without it neither you nor GPT-4 would even know how to read the questions.> Yes, but GPT-4 and human brains are very different things.
> GPT-4 has superhuman memory capabilities
> and almost certainly subhuman reasoning capabilities.
> I bet that it would take many human lifetimes to actually read the entire training datatset of GPT-4.
Again, it is important to understand what exactly GPT-4 is doing. It is certainly impressive, but it is not the same thing as a human being taking an IQ test,
To get to the point, I did advocate for a bit of skepticism for claiming consciousness for a computer system, and the retort was from JC that essentially, we cannot even define what makes a human conscious, and I am going with an au contraries', Pierre! I took me under 10 min to locate a worthy article submitted for JC's criticisms.
Here tis'
So, we are much closer to understand human consciousness. I am ask to to put the same effort into how a network developed this in so little time. Our our analog chips so mighty in 2022-3???
“How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp.”-- Thomas Huxley in " “Lessons in Elementary Psychology,” (1866)“An electron is neither red nor blue nor any other colour; the same holds for the proton, the nucleus of the hydrogen atom. But the union of the two in the atom of hydrogen, according to the physicist, produces electromagnetic radiation of a certain discrete array of wavelengths. The homogenous constituents of this radiation, when separated by a prism or an optical grating, stimulate in an observer the sensations of red, green, blue, violet by the intermediary of certain physiological processes, whose general character is sufficiently well known to assert that they are not red or green or blue, in fact that the nervous elements in question display no colour in virtue of their being stimulated; the white or gray the nerve cells exhibit whether stimulated or not is certainly insignificant in respect of the colour sensation which, in the individual whose nerves they are, accompanies their excitation.”-- Erwin Schrödinger in "Mind and Matter" (1958)“Few questions have endured longer or traversed a more perplexing history than this, the problem of consciousness and its place in nature. Despite centuries of pondering and experiment, of trying to get together two supposed entities called mind and matter in one age, subject and object in another, or soul and body in still others, despite endless discoursing on the streams, states, or contents of consciousness, of distinguishing terms like intuitions, sense data, the given, raw feels, the sensa, presentations and representations, the sensations, images, and affections of structuralist introspections, the evidential data of the scientific positivist, phenomenological fields, the apparitions of Hobbes, the phenomena of Kant, the appearances of the idealist, the elements of Mach, the phanera of Peirce, or the category errors of Ryle, in spite of all of these, the problem of consciousness is still with us.”-- Julian Jaynes in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" (1976)“We know that brains are the de facto causal basis of consciousness, but we have, it seems, no understanding whatever of how this can be so. It strikes us as miraculous, eerie, even faintly comic. Somehow, we feel, the water of the physical brain is turned into the wine of consciousness, but we draw a total blank on the nature of this conversion. Neural transmissions just seem like the wrong kind of materials with which to bring consciousness into the world, but it appears that in some way they perform this mysterious feat. The mind-body problem is the problem of understanding how the miracle is wrought, thus removing the sense of deep mystery. We want to take the magic out of the link between consciousness and the brain.”-- McGinn “Can we solve the mind body problem?” (1989)“IT IS REMARKABLE that most of the work in both cognitive science and the neurosciences makes no reference to consciousness (or 'awareness'), especially as many would regard consciousness a the major puzzle confronting the neural view of the mind and indeed at the present time it appears deeply mysterious to many people.”-- Francis Crick in "Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness" (1990)“At the time, I uncritically accepted the view that the troublesome phenomenal, or “what it is like,” aspect of experiences had nothing to do with their representational contents, and I supposed that neurophysiology would ultimately tell the full story. In the course of reflecting on this pair of assumptions in later years, I Came to think that I had made a serious mistake. Not only are the phenomenal or felt aspects of our mental lives representational but also (relatedly) they are not even in the head at all. So, neurophysiology certainly will not reveal to us what it is like to smell or skunk or to taste a fig. Look at the neurons for as long as you like, and you will not find phenomenal consciousness.”-- Michael Tye in "Ten Problems of consciousness" (1995)“Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind. There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain. All sorts of mental phenomena have yielded to scientific investigation in recent years, but consciousness has stubbornly resisted. Many have tried to explain it, but the explanations always seem to fall short of the target. Some have been led to suppose that the problem is intractable, and that no good explanation can be given.”-- David Chalmers in "Facing Up to the Hard Problem" (1996)“We should therefore not expect the search for a neural correlate of consciousness to lead to the holy grail of a universal theory. We might expect it to be valuable in helping us to understand consciousness in specific cases, such as the human case: learning more about the processes underlying awareness will certainly help us understand the structure and dynamics of consciousness, for example. But in holding up the bridge from physical processes to conscious experience, preexperimental coherence principles will always play a central role”-- David Chalmers in "The Conscious Mind" (1996)“Two decades later, we know an astonishing amount about the brain: you can’t follow the news for a week without encountering at least one more tale about scientists discovering the brain region associated with gambling, or laziness, or love at first sight, or regret – and that’s only the research that makes the headlines. Meanwhile, the field of artificial intelligence – which focuses on recreating the abilities of the human brain, rather than on what it feels like to be one – has advanced stupendously. But like an obnoxious relative who invites himself to stay for a week and then won’t leave, the Hard Problem remains. When I stubbed my toe on the leg of the dining table this morning, as any student of the brain could tell you, nerve fibres called “C-fibres” shot a message to my spinal cord, sending neurotransmitters to the part of my brain called the thalamus, which activated (among other things) my limbic system. Fine. But how come all that was accompanied by an agonising flash of pain? And what is pain, anyway?”-- Oliver Burkeman in “Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness?” (2015)
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/382281143.709221.1679006249871%40mail.yahoo.com.
> I took me under 10 min to locate a worthy article submitted for JC's criticisms.
> Here tis [drum roll]
> The approach the majority of neuroscientists take to the question of how consciousness is generated, it is probably fair to say, is to ignore it
> Neuroscience has furnished evidence that neurons are fundamental to consciousness;
> staggeringly complex system of electromagnetic field"
> The EM field literally manifests the computations, or signaling, or information processing/activities performed
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 8:26 AM Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.net> wrote:> Well, this is Machine Learning 101. If you train a model, it will always perform betterWell yes, if a machine couldn't learn then it wouldn't be intelligent!
>> When human beings take an IQ test that is almost certainly NOT the first test they've ever had, and like GPT-4 humans are also trained on a huge amount of data, without it neither you nor GPT-4 would even know how to read the questions.> Yes, but GPT-4 and human brains are very different things.They are similar in some ways, they both process information, and they are different in other ways, one processes information using carbon chemistry and the other processes information using silicon electronics.
> GPT-4 has superhuman memory capabilitiesYes> and almost certainly subhuman reasoning capabilities.If so I've seen no evidence of it, I have however seen evidence that the opposite is true.
> I bet that it would take many human lifetimes to actually read the entire training datatset of GPT-4.I'm sure that's true. Am I supposed to think less of GPT-4 because of that?
Again, it is important to understand what exactly GPT-4 is doing. It is certainly impressive, but it is not the same thing as a human being taking an IQ test,It's the same thing if you treat both humans and machines as black boxes and concentrate on what they do. Like it or not that's the only way we can deal with our fellow human beings that we encounter in everyday life, we have no way of knowing what's going on inside their head, all we can do is observe their behavior. Maybe Einstein was an idiot but he just had an ability to push a pen in such a way that he produced brilliant physics papers, but nobody believes that; instead we would say if somebody could write physics papers that were as brilliant as Einstein's then that person would be as smart as Einstein.It's interesting that until a few years ago the Turing Test was not very controversial because most thought it would be centuries before a machine could pass it, and many proclaimed a machine would never be able to pass it, but now that a machine has indeed passed it they say the Turing Test is not important, even though they personally still use the Turing Test a 1000 times a day whenever they judge the conscious state of one of their fellow human beings. Actually if GPT-4 really wanted to fool somebody into thinking it was a human being it would have to dumb itself down.
> Huge progresses is being made, but we are not at the human level of generality of intelligence and autonomy. Not even close.
> I fear that you are falling for the very human bias (I fall for it so many times myself) of seeing what you want to see.
> A machine learning system can only be objectively evaluated by applying it to data that was not used to train it.
>Again, it is important to understand what exactly GPT-4 is doing. It is certainly impressive, but it is not the same thing as a human being taking an IQ test,
> I do think that passing the Turing test is impressive,
> although it is true that most AI researchers never took it very seriously,
> GPT-4 and image generators are a type of intelligence that we had never seen before. Maybe the first time such a thing arises in this galaxy or even universe,
> They are probably also similar to stuff that happens in our brain. But what they are not is something you can be compare to a human mind with an IQ test in any meaningful way.
> That is just junk science.
> The way one would be able to see that the system despite performing
extremely well does not have the intellectual capabilities of a human
being, would be to follow up on gaps in its knowledge and see if it can
learn from its mistakes and master new subjects.
> I'll be convinced if they succeed making such a system do original
research in, say, theoretical physics or mathematics
> I would be more impressed by a system that may make many more mistakes like that than this GPT system made, but where there is a follow-up conversation where the mistakes are pointed out and the system shows that it has learned
> The authors are professionals. You hold that your knowledge base is is greater than the authors?
w
I am far, less, the philosopher then you are. All this peasant (me!) requires for both animals and machines is a basic mechanical, cause + effect diagram on how both sets attained self-awareness? Call it a working theory.
Douglas Hofstadter in "Godel Escher Bach" (1979):"My belief is that the explanations of “emergent” phenomena in our brains–for instance, ideas hopes, images, analogies, and finally consciousness and free will–are based on a kind of Strange Loop, an interaction between levels in which the top level reaches back down towards the bottom level and influences it, while at the same time being itself determined by the bottom level. In other words, a self-reinforcing “resonance” between different levels–quite like the Henkin sentence, which by merely asserting its own provability, actually becomes provable. The self comes into being at the moment it has the power to reflect itself."Daniel Dennett in “Consciousness Explained” (1991):"Anyone or anything that has such a virtual machine as its control system is conscious in the fullest sense, and is conscious because it has such a virtual machine."David Chalmers in "The Conscious Mind" (1996):"Given the laws of coherence, we have a partial answer: consciousness arises in virtue of the functional organization associated with awareness. We can even arrive at a fairly specific understanding of parts of the supervenience relation by virtue of the principle of structural coherence: not only does consciousness arise from awareness, but the structure of consciousness is determined by the structure of awareness."David Darling in "Zen Physics - The Science of Death, The Logic of Reincarnation" (1996):"But there is also an interior view, to which you alone are privy. In mechanistic terms, as well as the appearance of the brain-body machine, there is the feeling of what it is like to be that machine — the subjective experience of being a certain someone. Consciousness, we might say, is the symmetry-breaking factor between the objective and the subjective."Gerald Maurice Edelman and Giulio Tononi in "A Universe of Consciousness" (2000):"For the first time in evolution, information acquires a new potential–the possibility of subjectivity. It is information “for somebody”; in short, it becomes consciousness itself."Bruno Marchal in discussion list (2020):"Consciousness is just anything simultaneously true, non provable, knowable, even indubitable (knowingly for “rich" entities) and non definable, and indeed the logic of machine self-reference shows that all machine looking inward, in the way allowed by mathematical logic (theoretical computer science) will bring a term to describe this, and is a good candidate to be called consciousness."Stephen Wolfram in “What is Consciousness” (2021):"In a sense what’s important is that it seems we may have a realistic way to formalize issues about consciousness, and to turn questions about consciousness into what amount to concrete questions about mathematics, computation, logic or whatever that can be formally and rigorously explored."
It's remarkable that we attained consciousness and even more remarkable that a server farm could do so.
If one is a pantheist, then I suppose one sees consciousness in everything, being, "as right as rain." I have no objection to that view either, because maybe the pantheists are correct or will be found so?
Now, by choice, would I prefer to have a Turning-surpassable computer, or something that unconsciously, churns out wonderful technologies for humanity? I'll pick the later, because we have 8 billion people to chat with on this world, and I choose to chat with people. I personally, would like to chat with my fellow humans about the new, asteroid mining craft GPT6 just produced, but so far, there's zero in the news about that.
This, comes from my values, but it's non-obligatory that all humans need value this as a first. Each to their own.
There might not be much to it. A thermostat may be conscious. Consciousness might be easy to achieve. What is difficult is developing a system capable of describing its conscious states, or at least its own bafflement over the fact that it is something that experiences conscious states.
If one is a pantheist, then I suppose one sees consciousness in everything, being, "as right as rain." I have no objection to that view either, because maybe the pantheists are correct or will be found so?
Now, by choice, would I prefer to have a Turning-surpassable computer, or something that unconsciously, churns out wonderful technologies for humanity? I'll pick the later, because we have 8 billion people to chat with on this world, and I choose to chat with people. I personally, would like to chat with my fellow humans about the new, asteroid mining craft GPT6 just produced, but so far, there's zero in the news about that.
This, comes from my values, but it's non-obligatory that all humans need value this as a first. Each to their own.
In any case it is important that we solve this problem quickly. If our machines are conscious, it is important to know that so we don't create and mistreat a slave race. If our machines have no consciousness whatever, that is also important to know, if we create robot companions and colleagues, or prosthetic robot bodies to upload sick and dying biological brains into, or if we create self-replicating machines that fill the galaxy, we should know beforehand if they are conscious or not. These questions will become pressing very soon.
Jason