Kogasa

If a line-following robot bumps into a 3 year old, it might knock them over. It’s a different situation with high speed 2 ton death machines

It’s called speed of lobsters

I’m speaking my truth. XR Adderall, crack em open and pour em on me tongue. The caviar of stimulants

My only time-release capsule is filled with little beads, I just pop it open and eat the beads like pop rocks

I’ve been taking 6+ pills a day for years and still can’t get myself to swallow them. I just chew everything. Tasty painkillers and caffeine.

Once every 50 years or so

If my cooking senses are right, it would be like cooking bacon in a stainless steel pan, which is sticky and burny but not impossible

This has nothing to do with Windows or Linux. Crowdstrike has in fact broken Linux installs in a fairly similar way before.

Sure, throw people in jail who haven’t committed a crime, that’ll fix all kinds of systemic issues

Catch and then what? Return to what?

It sounds like you don’t understand the complexity of the game. Despite being finite, the number of possible games is extremely large.

U good?

Your first two paragraphs seem to rail against a philosophical conclusion made by the authors by virtue of carrying out the Turing test. Something like “this is evidence of machine consciousness” for example. I don’t really get the impression that any such claim was made, or that more education in epistemology would have changed anything.

In a world where GPT4 exists, the question of whether one person can be fooled by one chatbot in one conversation is long since uninteresting. The question of whether specific models can achieve statistically significant success is maybe a bit more compelling, not because it’s some kind of breakthrough but because it makes a generalized claim.

Re: your edit, Turing explicitly puts forth the imitation game scenario as a practicable proxy for the question of machine intelligence, “can machines think?”. He directly argues that this scenario is indeed a reasonable proxy for that question. His argument, as he admits, is not a strongly held conviction or rigorous argument, but “recitations tending to produce belief,” insofar as they are hard to rebut, or their rebuttals tend to be flawed. The whole paper was to poke at the apparent differences between (a futuristic) machine intelligence and human intelligence. In this way, the Turing test is indeed a measure of intelligence. It’s not to say that a machine passing the test is somehow in possession of a human-like mind or has reached a significant milestone of intelligence.

https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238

I don’t think the methodology is the issue with this one. 500 people can absolutely be a legitimate sample size. Under basic assumptions about the sample being representative and the effect size being sufficiently large you do not need more than a couple hundred participants to make statistically significant observations. 54% being close to 50% doesn’t mean the result is inconclusive. With an ideal sample it means people couldn’t reliably differentiate the human from the bot, which is presumably what the researchers believed is of interest.

We aren’t trying to establish that neurons are conscious. The thought experiment presupposes that there is a consciousness, something capable of understanding, in the room. But there is no understanding because of the circumstances of the room. This demonstrates that the appearance of understanding cannot confirm the presence of understanding. The thought experiment can’t be formulated without a prior concept of what it means for a human consciousness to understand something, so I’m not sure it makes sense to say a human mind “is a Chinese room.” Anyway, the fact that a human mind can understand anything is established by completely different lines of thought.

This fails to engage with the thought experiment. The question isn’t if “the room is fluent in Chinese.” It is whether the machine learning model is actually comparable to the person in the room, executing program instructions to turn input into output without ever understanding anything about the input or output.

Yup, you’ll notice the only thing distinguishing C from R^(2) is that multiplication. That one definition has extremely broad implications.

For fun, another definition is in terms of 2x2 matrices with real entries. The identity matrix

1 0
0 1

is identified with the real number 1, and the matrix

0 1
-1 0

is identified with i. Given this setup, the normal definitions of matrix addition and multiplication define the complex numbers.

One definition of the complex numbers is the set of tuples (x, y) in R^(2) with the operations of addition: (a,b) + (c,d) = (a+c, b+d) and multiplication: (a,b) * (c,d) = (ac - bd, ad + bc). Then defining i := (0,1) and identifying (x, 0) with the real number x, we can write (a,b) = a + bi.

I don’t really query, but it’s good enough at code generation to be occasionally useful. If it can spit out 100 lines of code that is generally reasonable, it’s faster to adjust the generated code than to write it all from scratch. More generally, it’s good for generating responses whose content and structure are easy to verify (like a question you already know the answer to), with the value being in the time saved rather than the content itself.

It’s incredibly easy to figure out what that means.