<div dir="auto">Of course, LLMs can’t think. The more interesting question is: What are the implications of the apparent thinking of LLMs for our understanding of human thinking? I suspect that, as more powerful LLMs emerge, this question will become more salient. The space of what cannot be done by AI will keep shrinking, and all we will have to fall back on is the feeling that humans are different - which I agree with. We will then be forced to explain much better how, why, and in what ways is human thinking different than something very large neural networks can ever achieve. We should be prepared for the possibility that the answer is “none”. After all, we have an existence proof of a very large neural network - the human brain - that can produce human thinking!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I suspect that, in the end we’ll find out that the brain needs a behaving body embedded in the real world and the capacity for self-motivated behavior to be intelligent like a human. Computers in server farms will just keep simulating some parts of it better and better. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Best</div><div dir="auto">Ali</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 6:51 AM Gary Marcus <<a href="mailto:gary.marcus@nyu.edu">gary.marcus@nyu.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr">Frederick, Geoff and others,</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">by the way I don’t know about “average people” but here is a great example of a bright journalist (not an AI expert or ML researcher) with perfectly clear recognition of how GPT-4 cannot be trusted,—and a reminder that for all its alleged “understanding” GPT-4 is utterly unconstrained by any internal process of fact-checking, which is to say that it cannot ground its text-pastiching process in reality, another diagnostic of discomprehension:</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><img src="cid:186ef733e6cb99a6ef91" alt="IMG_3988" style="width: 909px; max-width: 100%;"></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">for good measure, some subtle lies about SVB, also generated by GPT-4 (reported by Dileep George).</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><img src="cid:186ef733e6c218768f22" alt="IMG_5655" style="width: 775px; max-width: 100%;"></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Mar 17, 2023, at 08:48, Gary Marcus <<a href="mailto:gary.marcus@nyu.edu" target="_blank">gary.marcus@nyu.edu</a>> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"></div></blockquote></div><div dir="auto"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr">Average people were fooled by a chatbot called Eugene Goostman that ultimately had exactly zero long-term impact on AI. I wrote about it and the trouble with the Turing Test here in 2014: <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/what-comes-after-the-turing-test" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px" target="_blank">https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/what-comes-after-the-turing-test</a> </div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Mar 17, 2023, at 8:42 AM, Rothganger, Fredrick <<a href="mailto:frothga@sandia.gov" target="_blank">frothga@sandia.gov</a>> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Noting the examples that have come up on this list over the last week, it's interesting that it takes some of the most brilliant AI researchers in the world to devise questions that break LLMs. Chatbots have always been able to fool some people some of the
time, ever since ELIZA. But we now have systems that can fool a lot of people a lot of the time, and even the occasional expert who loses their perspective and comes to believe the system is sentient. LLMs have either already passed the classic Turning test,
or are about to in the next generation.</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(0,0,0)">
What does that mean exactly? Turing's expectation was that "the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted". The ongoing discussion here is an
indication that we are approaching that threshold. For the average person, we've probably already passed it.<br>
</div>
<br>
</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><b>Ali A. Minai, Ph.D.</b><br>Professor and Graduate Program Director<br>Complex Adaptive Systems Lab<br>Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering<br></div><div>828 Rhodes Hall<br></div><div>University of Cincinnati<br>Cincinnati, OH 45221-0030</div><div><br>Phone: (513) 556-4783<br>Fax: (513) 556-7326<br>Email: <a href="mailto:Ali.Minai@uc.edu" target="_blank">Ali.Minai@uc.edu</a><br> <a href="mailto:minaiaa@gmail.com" target="_blank">minaiaa@gmail.com</a><br><br>WWW: <a href="http://www.ece.uc.edu/%7Eaminai/" target="_blank">https://eecs.ceas.uc.edu/~aminai/</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>