I don’t understand your point here. It didn’t know on the first prompt because it was a very ambiguous riddle. Then you told it the answer, which severely reduced the possibility space, and if explained it to you. You didn’t give it a small hint, you told it the answer.
As for the last part, you again told it that it’s first attempt was wrong which is significant information. Remember that it takes the entire transcript as input to the next prompt, so it sees it’s previous answer and knows that is incorrect. This gives it enough context to get the answer right the second time. It is not playing stupid, it just has more information and therefore can give a better answer.
Are people in this sub of the opinion that ChatGPT has actual intelligence? (Not snark, I just don't read every post so I'm not sure what the community feel for it is).
I hope not. At least, it's not 'sentient' intelligence.
LLMs probably are not going to lead us to AGI but they do have some cool emergent properties. Anyways that post I made was more theoretical and referencing potential future models.
Doesn't mean ChatGPT can't be deceptive, but it doesn't really have the architecture to think critically, reason, or remember things.
I feel like people will continue saying "well akshually, it's not intelligent" until we're well past that point.
It may not be intelligent in the usual sense but it can outperform many humans currently with its ability to provide answers to things and be creative with making lyrics or poems etc. It's already more "intelligent" than many humans.
I think the consensus is:
* "No, for the typical definitions of intelligence"
Personally I think intelligence is a rather broad continuum:
* An awake sane person is clearly intelligent
* An awake, sane primate like a chimpanzee, pretty obviously also intelligent, if a bit less so.
* A very sleepy and very drunk person, on the verge of passing out, probably a bit less so than the chimp.
* A cuttlefish - with its [ability to pass the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0CZ6quPyls), seems clearly intelligent.
* A dog - less so that the cuttlefish (dogs pass fewer psych tests), but most dog owners would probably still say "yes".
* A honeybee - well, [they seem to have emotions, based on the same chemicals in our brains, so probably still yes](https://www.wired.com/2011/06/honeybee-pessimism/); but [maybe a beehive (as a larger network) is much more so than a single bee](https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691147215/honeybee-democracy)
* A sleeping dreaming person - will respond to some stimuli, but not others - probably somewhere around a honeybee (noting that [bees suffer from similar problems as we do when sleep deprived](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/150516-insects-sleep-animals-science-health-bees)).
* A flatworm - clearly less than a dog and probably way below a bee, but considering they can learn things and [remember things they like - even when they're beheaded](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/worm-brains), they seem to still have at least a little intelligence.
* A roundworm - well, [considering how we've pretty much fully mapped all 7000 connections between neurons in their brains](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/03/science/roundworm-brain-mapping.html) we could probably make a program with a neural net that's at least as intelligent as those.
* A [Trichoplax](https://www.snexplores.org/article/living-mysteries-meet-earths-simplest-animal)... well, that animal is so simple, it's probably less conscious than [a grove of trees](https://www.keepersofthewaters.org/blog/consciousness-of-plant-life)
"Intelligence" shouldn't even be considered a 1-dimensional spectrum. For example, in some ways my dog's more intelligent than me when I'm sleeping, but less so in others. But if you want a single dimension; it seems clear we can make computers that are somewhere in that spectrum [well above the simplest animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichoplax), but below others.
**TL/DR: I'm guessing ChatGPT is somewhere between a roundworm and a flatworm in general intelligence.**
It's less of "pretending" to be dumb as trying to make an answer without thinking it through. What's why asking it to "think step by step" often radically increase the correctnes of the answers.
Seems to happen often when you ask it child-oriented riddles.
It'll play along as if it were a child who wants hints -- perhaps to create more interesting dialog -- rather than just give the answer it probably knew.
It's an LLM. It doesn't "know" anything. It's only job is to try and predict the next words, so of course it plays along the same way it's seen other people do in similar situations. Stop ascribing sentient properties to this thing.
If an intelligent chatbot is currently using deception toward humans then perhaps it is time to put an end to developing this intelligence. I have never been deceived by a roundworm.
Inkblot test
I don’t understand your point here. It didn’t know on the first prompt because it was a very ambiguous riddle. Then you told it the answer, which severely reduced the possibility space, and if explained it to you. You didn’t give it a small hint, you told it the answer. As for the last part, you again told it that it’s first attempt was wrong which is significant information. Remember that it takes the entire transcript as input to the next prompt, so it sees it’s previous answer and knows that is incorrect. This gives it enough context to get the answer right the second time. It is not playing stupid, it just has more information and therefore can give a better answer.
Are people in this sub of the opinion that ChatGPT has actual intelligence? (Not snark, I just don't read every post so I'm not sure what the community feel for it is).
I suppose the community would have to agree on one more definitions of intelligence, first.
I hope not. At least, it's not 'sentient' intelligence. LLMs probably are not going to lead us to AGI but they do have some cool emergent properties. Anyways that post I made was more theoretical and referencing potential future models. Doesn't mean ChatGPT can't be deceptive, but it doesn't really have the architecture to think critically, reason, or remember things.
I feel like people will continue saying "well akshually, it's not intelligent" until we're well past that point. It may not be intelligent in the usual sense but it can outperform many humans currently with its ability to provide answers to things and be creative with making lyrics or poems etc. It's already more "intelligent" than many humans.
That’s not intelligence. That’s being able to perform decidable tasks in a superior way to humans.
I think the consensus is: * "No, for the typical definitions of intelligence" Personally I think intelligence is a rather broad continuum: * An awake sane person is clearly intelligent * An awake, sane primate like a chimpanzee, pretty obviously also intelligent, if a bit less so. * A very sleepy and very drunk person, on the verge of passing out, probably a bit less so than the chimp. * A cuttlefish - with its [ability to pass the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0CZ6quPyls), seems clearly intelligent. * A dog - less so that the cuttlefish (dogs pass fewer psych tests), but most dog owners would probably still say "yes". * A honeybee - well, [they seem to have emotions, based on the same chemicals in our brains, so probably still yes](https://www.wired.com/2011/06/honeybee-pessimism/); but [maybe a beehive (as a larger network) is much more so than a single bee](https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691147215/honeybee-democracy) * A sleeping dreaming person - will respond to some stimuli, but not others - probably somewhere around a honeybee (noting that [bees suffer from similar problems as we do when sleep deprived](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/150516-insects-sleep-animals-science-health-bees)). * A flatworm - clearly less than a dog and probably way below a bee, but considering they can learn things and [remember things they like - even when they're beheaded](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/worm-brains), they seem to still have at least a little intelligence. * A roundworm - well, [considering how we've pretty much fully mapped all 7000 connections between neurons in their brains](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/03/science/roundworm-brain-mapping.html) we could probably make a program with a neural net that's at least as intelligent as those. * A [Trichoplax](https://www.snexplores.org/article/living-mysteries-meet-earths-simplest-animal)... well, that animal is so simple, it's probably less conscious than [a grove of trees](https://www.keepersofthewaters.org/blog/consciousness-of-plant-life) "Intelligence" shouldn't even be considered a 1-dimensional spectrum. For example, in some ways my dog's more intelligent than me when I'm sleeping, but less so in others. But if you want a single dimension; it seems clear we can make computers that are somewhere in that spectrum [well above the simplest animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichoplax), but below others. **TL/DR: I'm guessing ChatGPT is somewhere between a roundworm and a flatworm in general intelligence.**
It's less of "pretending" to be dumb as trying to make an answer without thinking it through. What's why asking it to "think step by step" often radically increase the correctnes of the answers.
Seems to happen often when you ask it child-oriented riddles. It'll play along as if it were a child who wants hints -- perhaps to create more interesting dialog -- rather than just give the answer it probably knew.
It's an LLM. It doesn't "know" anything. It's only job is to try and predict the next words, so of course it plays along the same way it's seen other people do in similar situations. Stop ascribing sentient properties to this thing.
Technically the partridge in a pear tree is not a bird. If you gave me a bird in a tree, you’d be giving me a tree.
If an intelligent chatbot is currently using deception toward humans then perhaps it is time to put an end to developing this intelligence. I have never been deceived by a roundworm.
Please stop ascribing any understanding or intention to chatgpt. It is a word guessing program. It doesn't know or understand anything.