Earlier quoted context omitted.
Realness has little to do with the quality of the output. Or else my TI-83 would be the realest mathematician on the planet, it can multiply numbers that even Terence Tao can't in his head. Judging these systems solely by their output is to repeat the msitakes of behaviorism, even a dumb markov chain or a parrot converses better than an infant, but unlike the infant does not acquire an understanding or representation…
> has little to do with the quality of the output. Non-snarky question: What else can you judge by? Isn't any alternative just putting more precise conditions on the output? With ChatGPT, it's still easy enough to see it's mistakes, and its attempts at fiction and poetry, impressive as they are, are still clumsy to a trained eye, relative to expert human work. But what if they weren't? What happens when they're indis…
its architecure. A child is a living and autonomous agent. It has (or develops) meta cognition, an awareness of its own mental state (and by extension use of language). These models don't have the capacity to do this even in theory given that they're static and pretrained. When you ask ChatGPT what it feels like to speak, there isn't some neural activity within the model, it has no model of itself that it actively inspects, it doesn't learn while it converses with you, it just tells you what someone wrote on Quora two years ago.
>What happens when they're indistinguishable?
Then the system is likely going to look a lot different than it does now because these aspects of cognition seem pretty important when you want something that is genuinely human-like rather than just mimicry or memorization.