Why did I get a notification for this?

I'm lucky in finding constant background music almost unbearable. — Jamal

:clap: I am 100% in agreement with finding constant background music unbearable. That is the biggest reason for turning off my TV and selecting less music, or no music, in videos. I also turn off annoying voices.

I explain the dumping down and growing stupidity differently. I chose the video because it brought up increasing stupidity, and I think that is the point people against AI are trying to make. While I don't have total agreement with the video, it is nice to know that research is being done, and there is evidence that, in general, we are becoming less thoughtful. While the technology for manipulating what we think has evolved dramatically in the last 50 years.

Why did I get a notification for this? — baker

I have no idea. Please PM the message so I might figure out what went wrong.

Simply put it: The Turing test isn't at all a theorem about consciousness. — ssu

Perhaps, but then what is it about? Turing was playing with the idea that machines can think, but even that question was largely avoided in his paper. I think you find the same sort of confusion in Turing that you find in the world today, namely an unwillingness to think carefully about what 'thinking' or 'consciousness' means. Still, one of her points is very interesting, "On this illusion, we have created a technological empire..." We benefit a great deal by pretending that something which is not true is true (e.g. pretending that machines can think or are conscious).

Notice that OP was published five months before ChatGPT went live. — Wayfarer

I don't think the advent of ChatGPT changes anything in her article.

ChatGPT has the largest take-up of any software release in history, it and other LLM's are inevitable aspects of techno-culture. It's what you use them for, and how, that matters. — Wayfarer

I think this is more a mantra than an argument. For some reason, many people don't want to consider the fact that we have a choice when it comes to technology. I think it relates to libertarianism and a culture enamored with technology.

(Incidentally, I think the "inevitability" was shown to be rather brittle when Michael Burry placed a short against the AI industry and the tech giants exploded with fear and anger.)

I don't think the advent of ChatGPT changes anything in her article. — Leontiskos

Yes, true, that. I went back and looked again. What i siezed on first time around was her mention of the Blake LeMoine case which was discussed here at length. I agree with her conclusion:

"For now, if we want to talk to another consciousness, the only companion we can be certain fits the bill is ourselves."

Furthermore, I know a priori that LLMs would affirm that.

Perhaps, but then what is it about? Turing was playing with the idea that machines can think, but even that question was largely avoided in his paper. — Leontiskos

Notice what I said: it isn't a theorem. It's not giving a logical definition.

It is not what a theorem is: a general proposition that is not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths. Basically logic, mathematics and science in general the structure of the reasoning process is based on theorems.

Turing Test is more like a loose description of what computers exhibiting human-like intelligence would be like. That's not a theorem, yet many people take it as the example when computers have human-like intelligence. With current LLMs, I guess we are there after 75 years Turing wrote about his test. Turing himself thought that this would take about 200 years.

Notice what I said: it isn't a theorem. It's not giving a logical definition. — ssu

Again, then what is it? Turing's whole paper was basically saying, "This isn't a test for machine thinking, but it's a test for machine thinking."

Turing Test is more like a loose description of what computers exhibiting human-like intelligence would be like. That's not a theorem, yet many people take it as the example when computers have human-like intelligence. — ssu

You are saying something similar, "This isn't a test for machine intelligence, but it's a loose test for machine intelligence."

If you actually read Turing's paper it's pretty clear that he thinks machines can think, and that his test is sufficient to show such a thing, despite all the sophistical evasions he produces.

Turing himself thought that this would take about 200 years. — ssu

Nope:

I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible, to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 109, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning. — Alan Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, 1950, p. 442

This non-paywalled article in Philosophy Now is worth the read in respect of this topic. Presents the 'no' case for 'can computers think?' Rescuing Mind from the Machines, Vincent Carchidi. If if you don't agree with the conclusions, he lays out some of the issues pretty clearly.