Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models

Post by shawnz » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 8:25 PM UTC

avgcorrection wrote: post #317

shawnz wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are only interested in the most superficial tests and theories—like the Turing Test—then consider psychology conquered once you’ve tricked a human with your chat bot. What's the counterargument? What's a less superficial test that we can use instead, which conclusively shows that actually human minds aren't just like very sophisticated LLMs? There isn't one -- this is nothing but the same Chinese room proble…

> (though in general I think the favored “alignment” frames of the LessWrong community are not even wrong). The Turing Test doesn’t test humans . So you cannot use it to show any properties about humans. Next! > The topmost poster is simply assuming that language models can't possibly understand the same way a human does without relying on any kind of "test" at all, which I think is the real scientific dead end here.…