31–40 of 112 posts
So was Eliza from 1966 more intelligent than Dr SBAITSO from 1990? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Sbaitso
Wasn't SBAITSO pretty much the same idea as Eliza, only using speech synthesis with a Soundblaster?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Especially that computers can decide what comes next, but only a human can choose what to do. I don't understand this, all the programs I've ever written make decisions based on some factors. Are you talking about free will? If so, what is free will?
Doing things because you can and not because you have to? Creative endeavors in the largest sense?
Just because it feels as though I do things because I can doesn’t mean that is actually true.
Here is the pointer to the original Eliza paper https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/365153.365168 Note that Weizenbaum was an AI critic: Weizenbaum's intention was not for Eliza to pass the Turing test, but to show to people that a clearly not intelligent program based on primitive pattern matching can appear to behave intelligently. He failed: His own secretary wanted to be left alone with the software and typed in her p…
Weizenbaum even wrote an entire book, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation, on how AI is a crank term for computer science. The basic premise is that humans are not machine so stop using language that treats them as such. Especially that computers can decide what comes next, but only a human can choose what to do. The book also has one of the best and most succinct descriptions of Turing mach…
Aren't we? Casual chains upon our matter produce emergent behaviors using the same physics and chemistry that our mechanistic creations rely upon.
Certainly those behaviors and results do not produce the same repeatable, predictable results as our clockworks but that is the whole point of the field of AI (as opposed to the marketing corruption/term that is currently in vogue, so GAI if you prefer), to produce system and algorithm structures designed with architecture and patterns more like our own.
Perhaps you believe in the ghost in the machine hypothesis? The magical soul that is more than the emergent evolving pattern produced across time by DNA replicators? That this undefinable, unmeasurable spirit makes us forever different?
Here is the pointer to the original Eliza paper https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/365153.365168 Note that Weizenbaum was an AI critic: Weizenbaum's intention was not for Eliza to pass the Turing test, but to show to people that a clearly not intelligent program based on primitive pattern matching can appear to behave intelligently. He failed: His own secretary wanted to be left alone with the software and typed in her p…
I'd say he succeeded. It just seems that people are perfectly content with just appearance of intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"GPT-4 achieved a success rate of 41 percent, second only to actual humans" also feels like a (much bigger) lie of omission looking at the original paper. GPT4's performance was in the range of 6% to 41%, Eliza's 27% score sat in the upper middle of that range, and considering the bots tested consisted of 8 GPT4 prompts, 2 GPT3.5 prompts and a naive script from the 1960s, GPT4 would have had to be remarkably consiste…
The example ELIZA responses in the paper are so laughably bad and trivial to pick up, I'm not convinced the human interrogators were sober/conscious/awake during the experiment.
Turing's version involves experts who definitely aren't in the same room waving to each other, but the fundamental problem is it isn't a particularly good test
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Especially that computers can decide what comes next, but only a human can choose what to do. I don't understand this, all the programs I've ever written make decisions based on some factors. Are you talking about free will? If so, what is free will?
Doing things because you can and not because you have to? Creative endeavors in the largest sense?
Here is the pointer to the original Eliza paper https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/365153.365168 Note that Weizenbaum was an AI critic: Weizenbaum's intention was not for Eliza to pass the Turing test, but to show to people that a clearly not intelligent program based on primitive pattern matching can appear to behave intelligently. He failed: His own secretary wanted to be left alone with the software and typed in her p…
Not only his secretary, also some psychiatrists wanted Eliza as a tool to scale up their work clinically.
Now here I am talking about life, the universe, and everything with ChatGPT. It makes me both inexplicably happy/hopeful and simultaneously weirdly melancholic.
[0] https://liza.io/its-not-so-bad.-we-have-snail-babies-after-a...