Such a clickbaity article.
Here’s the meat of it:
Have they finally achieved consciousness and this is how they show it?!
No. The answer, as is usually the case with these things, is that we are anthropomorphizing a step too far. These models don’t care about what is and isn’t random. They don’t know what “randomness” is! They answer this question the same way they answer all the rest: by looking at their training data and repeating what was most often written after a question that looked like “pick a random number.” The more often it appears, the more often the model repeats it.
Can we stop calling LLMs for AI yet?
LLMs are AI. But then again, so are mundane algorithms like A* Pathfinding. Artificial Intelligence is an extraordinarily broad field.
Very few, if any, people claim that ChatGPT is “Artificial General Intelligence”, which is what you probably meant.
It’s a meaningless marketing term. It’s used to describe so many different technologies that it has become meaningless. People just use it to give their tech some SciFi vibes.
Sorry but that’s bullshit. You can’t disqualify an entire decades-old field of study because some marketing people used it wrong.
No it’s not. The engineers and researchers calling any tech they made AI is bullshit. It has nothing to do with intelligence. They used it wrong from the very beginning.
Please read up on the history of AI: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
Alan Turing was the first person to conduct substantial research in the field that he called machine intelligence.[5] Artificial intelligence was founded as an academic discipline in 1956.[6]
You are conflating the modern “deep learning” technique of AI, which has really only existed for a short time, with the entire history of AI development, which has existed for (probably much) longer than you’ve been alive. It’s a very common misconception.
Just because it’s old doesn’t make it true. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)was established in 1948. Do you think North Korea is democratic just because it’s called that?
Are you telling me that Alan Turing didn’t know what he was talking about?
“Favourite numbers” is just another way of saying model bias, a centuries old knowtion.
There’s no ethics in journalism. That’s the real story here.
I swear every article posted to Lemmy about LLMs are written by my 90 year old grandpa, given how out of touch they are with the technology. If I see another article about what ChatGPT “believes”…
No. The answer, as is usually the case with these things, is that we are anthropomorphizing a step too far.
No, you are taking it too far before walking it back to get clicks.
I wrote in the headline that these models “think they’re people,” but that’s a bit misleading.
“I wrote something everyone will know is bullshit in the headline to get you to click on it before denouncing the bullshit in at the end of the article as if it was a PSA.”
I am not sure if I could loathe how ‘journalists’ cover AI more.
Journalistic integrity! Journalists now print retractions in the very article where the errors appear
“because they think they are people” … hmmmmmmmmmmmmm this quote makes my neurons stop doing synapse
You guys have favorite numbers?
That was my thought. Am I not a person?
I have two favorite numbers, myself.
69 and 420.
they think they’re people
That’s kinda sad if true.
They don’t think at all.
I know, I know…
He knows, he knows!
Except that they don’t think anything at all - they’re just statistics machines, and the author clarified. Clickbaity headline.
Leave me and my anthropomorphizing alone! 😭
