Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

georgiedawn t1_j7bj58t wrote

So it's important to understand what is machine learning, which is what ChatGPT is based off. At it's core, machine learning is a giant probability calculator. The way it works is you feed a ML architecture input data (called 'training') and the computer then computes all these probabilities to generate the ML model. Then when you go back and ask a question, it can figure out based on probabilities what to spit out. Indeed in something called a neural network, we often have many interconnecting nodes of linear regression models (technically ReLU), your basic y=mx+b from high school. (note ChatGPT isn't a NN but rather a LLM, but the point on probability still stands)

Why is this relevant? For one thing, it is dependent on what you train it. In the early days of creating ChatGPT, it was fed off the internet. However, the internet is filled with incredibly sexist/racist/immature behavior so the computer used those probabilities in its model. When prompted with any question, it was very likely that at some point you'd get a creepy AI writing back to you.

All of this is in response to you:

a) machines do not think. It doesn't decide what you do or don't do; it just imitates what others have done (based off probabilities)

b) it's not going to show you that because early work found it to be very detrimental to the ML model so people manually removed any sensitive information.

15

StackOwOFlow t1_j7e87a1 wrote

our brains are also giant probability calculators

2

gundam1945 t1_j7f1ais wrote

Yes and no. For instance, Ml will map event that is not known to it to a event known to it. On the contrary, we will be able to recognize we don't know about it. From there, you could try to make an analog and solve it or invent some new theory to fit it. Machine lacks the intelligence to solve something new.

3

orincoro t1_j7fs7fw wrote

I’ve seen the argument that truly creative cognition requires the biological executive function. Something has to instantiate the desire to create, and in our minds, this is driven ultimately by the need for survival and reproduction (and of course, the shadow function of a need for death).

1

gundam1945 t1_j7jjsie wrote

Yes, the ability to adapt. We still don't understand the exact mechanism of our creative thinking. Machine learning is modeled according to how child learn. Therefore, without a model for creative thinking, I see that computer scientists will be difficult to come up with a truly creative AI.

1

orincoro t1_j7fs06k wrote

Not really. We don’t actually know exactly how cognition works, so it would be a little overzealous to analogize it with a machine. Whenever we do this, we tend to over-rely on such analogies. 20 years ago technologists were talking about how our brain has “apps.” 20 years before that, our brains had “ram.” And so forth. We analogize to machines because we can understand machines, but this does not our brain a machine make.

2

scrubbless t1_j7uz7rh wrote

My brain is smaller than a computer, so jokes on you!

... Wait.. Hmm...

1