<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Hi all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I think an important point here is that one should not play a simplistic “subtraction game” concerning human intelligence.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">To give an analogy: Animals eat. Humans eat. Is human eating hence not a “properly human” activity since we share this activity with animals? No.
There is no equivalent to say “fine dining” in the animal kingdom. Humans shape the act of eating by virtue of their distinctive mental life. Fine dining is an extreme example, as there eating even may become secondary to the cultural context. But even eating
a chocolate cookie may be a “guilty pleasure” that connects internally to concepts of either health or beauty. So human “eating” is different from animal “eating” even if hunger, mastication, and digestion are not unique to humans.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">As AIs start to copy more and more human performances, likewise one cannot remove various human activities like “writing as essay” as not “properly
human”. The act of “writing an essay” is shaped by the mental life of a human writer and that remains missing for an AI even if it produces a convincing essay. We know this because we have constructed the AI.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">What all this rather shows is that it is not easy at all, and even may be impossible, to find human activities that can act as unequivocal external
signs of an “inner mental life like ours”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">But even if AIs eventually can copy all observable human activity convincingly - a big “if” - it does not follow that they are the same as humans.
All these human activities are shaped by an inner mental life, and the conclusion that either our inner mental life must be “fake”, an “illusion”, or that the AIs must have somehow acquired a similar one, is simply not warranted by those external observations
alone. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Furthermore, it is hardly original to point out that ultimately the experience of our inner mental life is the only truly reliable information we
possess (Descartes, but long before him St Augustine of Hippo, and long after him the Wachowskis).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The Turing test does not provide a touchstone for sapience / human-ness. It is rather a measure of our own ability to detect this status, i.e., it
is just a version of CAPTCHA we like to play. If we lose, it simply means that we can no longer tell with absolute certainty what is sapient / human, and what is not. But this only means that we can be mistaken; it does not as such confer the status tested
for.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">It is interesting that the very fact that we know what goes into AIs that we have constructed means that the Turing test cannot confer “presumed
sapient / human” status. We simply know better... Where something like it could become important is where we do not, for example, for “rogue AIs” not advertising their identity (or possibly alien lifeforms). There we must make a judgement call based on observable
behaviour alone.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Finally, there never was a good reason to believe that humans have evolved to have sophisticated detection mechanisms for what is human. They never
needed to. Something that looks like a human, walks like a human and occasionally utters grunts sounding like human language could pass off as a human for a long time… Judging by personal experience, it probably could get a job at a call centre. The Turing
test always has been a somewhat academic exercise.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Ingo<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Connectionists <connectionists-bounces@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Thomas Nowotny<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 20 March 2023 09:48<br>
<b>To:</b> Gary Marcus <gary.marcus@nyu.edu>; Paul Cisek <paul.cisek@umontreal.ca><br>
<b>Cc:</b> connectionists@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Connectionists: Can LLMs think?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Hi Paul and Gary,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I think I am firmly in your camp & well summarised. However, there is this nagging doubt about how much of the human intelligence we attribute to
each other and ourselves are the same “</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">little strings and hidden compartments” and “how we just redirected the audience’s attention” that undoubtedly underlie LLMs abilities.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thomas Nowotny</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Connectionists <<a href="mailto:connectionists-bounces@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu">connectionists-bounces@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Gary Marcus<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 20 March 2023 08:01<br>
<b>To:</b> Paul Cisek <<a href="mailto:paul.cisek@umontreal.ca">paul.cisek@umontreal.ca</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:connectionists@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu">connectionists@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Connectionists: Can LLMs think?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">bravo!<span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On Mar 20, 2023, at 07:55, Paul Cisek <<a href="mailto:paul.cisek@umontreal.ca">paul.cisek@umontreal.ca</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"></span> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I must say that I’m somewhat dismayed when I read these kinds of discussions, here or elsewhere. Sure, it’s understandable that many people are fooled into thinking that LLMs are intelligent, just like many people were fooled by Eliza and
Eugene Goostman. Humans are predisposed into ascribing intention and purpose to events in the world, which helped them construct complex societies by (often correctly) interpreting the actions of other people around them. But this same predisposition also
led them to believe that the volcano was angry when it erupted because they did something to offend the gods. Given how susceptible humans are to this false ascription of agency, it is not surprising that they get fooled when something acts in a complex way.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But (most of) the people on this list know what’s under the hood! We know that LLMs are very good at pattern matching and completion, we know about the universal approximation theorem, we know that there is a lot of structure in the pattern
of human-written text, and we know that humans are predisposed to ascribe meaning and intention even where there are none. We should therefore not be surprised that LLMs can produce text patterns that generalize well within-distribution but not so well out-of-distribution,
and that when the former happens, people may be fooled into thinking they are speaking with a thinking being. Again, they were fooled by Eliza, and Eugene Goostman, and the Heider-Simmel illusion (ascribing emotion to animated triangles and circles)… and the
rumblings of volcanos. But we know how LLMs and volcanos do what they do, and can explain their behavior without any additional assumptions (of thinking, or sentience, or whatever). So why add them?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In a sense, we are like a bunch of professional magicians, who know where all of the little strings and hidden compartments are, and who know how we just redirected the audience’s attention to slip the card into our pocket… but then we
are standing around backstage wondering: “Maybe there really is magic?”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think it’s not that machines have passed the Turing Test, but rather that we failed it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul Cisek<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Rothganger, Fredrick <<a href="mailto:frothga@sandia.gov">frothga@sandia.gov</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:39 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:connectionists@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu">connectionists@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Connectionists: Can LLMs think?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>