Comment on Why I don't use AI in 2025
General_Effort@lemmy.world 2 days agoObviously the Turing test doesn’t cut it, which I suspected already back then.
The Turing test is misunderstood a lot. Here’s Wikipedia on the Turing test:
[Turing] opens with the words: “I propose to consider the question, ‘Can machines think?’” Because “thinking” is difficult to define, Turing chooses to “replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words”. Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person party game called the “imitation game”, in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing’s new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?
One should bear in mind that scientific methodology was not very formalized at the time. Today, it is self-evident to any educated person that the “judges” would have to be blinded, which is the whole point of the text chat setup.
What has been called “Turing test” over the years is simultaneously easier and harder. Easier, because these tests usually involved only a chat without any predetermined task that requires thinking. It was possible to pass without having to think. But also harder, because thinking alone is not sufficient. One has to convince an interviewer that one is part of the in-group. It is the ultimate social game; indeed, often a party game (haha, I made a pun). Turing himself, of course, eventually lost such a game.
All I can say is that with the level of intelligence current leading AI have, they make silly mistakes that seems obvious if it was really conscious.
For instance as strong as they seem analyzing logic problems, they fail to realize that 1+1=2 <=> 2=1+1.
This connects consciousness to reasoning ability in some unclear way. The example seems unfortunate, since humans need training to understand it. Most people in developed countries would agree that the equivalence is formally correct, but very few would be able to prove it. Most wouldn’t even know how to spell Peano Axiom; nor would they even try (Oh, luckier bridge and rail!)
Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I know about the Turing test, it’s what we were taught about and debated in philosophy class at University of Copenhagen, when I made my prediction that strong AI would probably be possible about year 2035.
Here equivalent actually means indistinguishable from a human.
But as a test of consciousness that is not a fair test, because obviously a consciousness can be different from a human, and our understanding of how a simulation can fake something without it being real is also a factor.
But the original question remains, how do we decide it’s not conscious if it responds as if it is?
Maybe it’s unclear because you haven’t pondered the connection? Our consciousness is a very big part of our reasoning, consciousness is definitely guiding our reasoning. And our consciousness improve the level of reasoning we are capable of.
I don’t see why the example requiring training for humans to understand is unfortunate. A leading AI has way more training than would ever be possible for any human, still they don’t grasp basic concepts, while their knowledge is way bigger than for any human.
It’s hard to explain, but intuitively it seems to me the missing factor is consciousness. It has learned tons of information by heart, but it doesn’t really understand any of it, because it isn’t conscious.
Being conscious is not just to know what the words mean, but to understand what they mean.
I think therefore I am.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Humans aren’t innately good at math. I wouldn’t have been able to prove the statement without looking things up. I certainly would not be able to come up with the Peano Axioms, or anything comparable, on my own. Most people, even educated people, probably wouldn’t understand what there is to prove. Actually, I’m not sure if I do.
It’s not clear why such deficiencies among humans do not argue against human consciousness.
That’s dubious. LLMs are trained on more text than a human ever sees, but humans are trained on data from several senses. I guess it’s not entirely clear how much data that is, but it’s a lot and very high quality. Humans are trained on that sense data and not on text. Humans read text and may learn from it.
What might an operational definition look like?
Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Just because you can’t make a mathematical proof doesn’t mean you don’t understand the very simple truth of the statement.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If I can’t prove it, I don’t know how I can claim to understand it.
It’s axiomatic that equality is symmetric. It’s also axiomatic that 1+1=2. There is not a whole lot to understand. I have memorized that. Actually, having now thought about this for a bit, I think I can prove it.
What makes the difference between a human learning these things and an AI being trained for them?
Then how will you know the difference between strong AI and not-strong AI?