Well then time to find new theories to test. GPTs are great but clearly dont have a model of the world, self, or others because they have not been engineered in. It's probably going to take a lot of additional subsystems until this thing gets self-reflective. The hypothesis that, by scaling the giant clockwork, these things will magically emerge is .. magical and unproven.
The great thing for cognitice scientists /linguists is that we now have a quantitative, precise framework and no longer need to talk in terms of the folk intelligence science of the past.
The fundamental concept behind LLMs is to allow the model to autonomously deduce concepts, rather than explicitly engineering solutions into the system.
The fundamental concept is to learn the statistics of text, and in the process it models the syntax via long-range connections successfully. There is no indication that it actively generates "concepts" or that it knows what concepts are. In fact the model is not self-reflective at all, it cannot observe its own activation or tell me anything about it.
I'm still waiting for someone to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that humans have a single one of these features we're debating about the presence or absence of in LLMs.
there is no way to prove because those are subjective to humans. LLMs would have to at least show they have a subjective view (currently the 'internal world' they report is inconsistent)
"concept" is ill-defined , it s a subjective thing that humans invented. It is probably not possible to define it without a sense (a definition) of self.
humans have a lot more subsystems that were shaped by evolution, not just by inflating a giant cortex. Many animals have even bigger cortex but show no sign of humanlike intelligent behavior and communication
Yes. these goalposts were just a test but it's not satisfactory enough to make the AI more of a person. If that were true, ChatGPT would be allowed to participate in here
The cognitive tests we rely on (turing test, chinese room etc etc ) are woefully outdated and inadequate for our time
The goalposts will always be moved btw, because our experience of intelligence is subjective and we 'll never have an objective measure of it. At some point we will stop moving them because we ve ran out of ideas. At that point we can say we have a facsimile of our intelligence
The great thing for cognitice scientists /linguists is that we now have a quantitative, precise framework and no longer need to talk in terms of the folk intelligence science of the past.