• MTK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As far as I know there is still a big ongoing debate about if there is something fundmental to intelligence that is not just calculations.

      • hperrin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s mostly a philosophical debate. If we create something that is perfectly indistinguishable from actual intelligence, I would call it actual intelligence, but the philosophers might not.

        • MTK@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well that is still very much a scientific and relevant debate.

          Some people will tell you that ChatGPT is intelligent but just because it can write like an intelligent person does not make it intelligent.

          • hperrin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I am perfectly willing to be, but haven’t currently been, convinced that there is a real distinction between natural and artificial intelligence. Until I am convinced though, I’m going to assume there’s no inherent quality about our brain that makes it irreproducible by technology.

            ChatGPT emulates intelligence pretty well, but you can still tell the difference between it and a human. So I would say again, we’re not at the point of AGI yet.

            But let me ask you, what is the difference between a machine that is perfectly capable of writing intelligent responses to questions and a human writing intelligent responses to questions? (Assuming we’re only measuring intelligence, not things like having a digestive system.) Could you think of a way to tell the two apart, only being able to ask questions to them and receive their responses?