I meant signal manipulation, but sure, that includes manipulating humans since we are just another signal input. That isn’t a statement on values, just an objective description of how it works.
That “intelligence” will tell you how it is not as intelligent if you ask directly. This is not because it’s intelligent and KNOWS it’s limitations but because it picked up on my signal for what I wanted and gave something resembling that to me. You could ask it the opposite thing and arrive at a very different conclusion.
https://claude.ai/share/97859aae-beb2-4245-a8b1-460122ee4aa1
I would even say the analogies it gave aren’t entirely accurate. A person reading a book experiences it very differently than an LLM. And this is a key insight to an element of the Turing test where you ask it to explain some poetry (not simply write a poem).
If we ignore what they are calling “AI” then the consequences will be beneficial to all. So, yes, we’ll live with those consequences.
Why the double quotes?
Because LLMs and similar generative “AI” tools aren’t intelligent.
Nor, arguably, are they artificial, since the models are grown rather than built.
What is intelligence? Also, I think artificial refers to the fact that they don’t have life.
Thanks.
Because signal matching and manipulation is not intelligence unless you’re willing to admit that is all you are capable of.
AI tools don’t actively manipulate people. They’re just confident about their answers as they should be.
I think they meant signal matching and signal manipulation
I meant signal manipulation, but sure, that includes manipulating humans since we are just another signal input. That isn’t a statement on values, just an objective description of how it works.
I still don’t understand how it cannot be as intelligent as us.
That “intelligence” will tell you how it is not as intelligent if you ask directly. This is not because it’s intelligent and KNOWS it’s limitations but because it picked up on my signal for what I wanted and gave something resembling that to me. You could ask it the opposite thing and arrive at a very different conclusion. https://claude.ai/share/97859aae-beb2-4245-a8b1-460122ee4aa1
I would even say the analogies it gave aren’t entirely accurate. A person reading a book experiences it very differently than an LLM. And this is a key insight to an element of the Turing test where you ask it to explain some poetry (not simply write a poem).
While I agree that it doesn’t have a physical experience, I don’t think a physical experience is necessary to speak to someone.
I meant LLMs and people experience reading a book differently in the internal sense. Or at least for some people.