The AI Mirror Test, which smart people keep failing
Not sure what the point of this article is. The newspaper stories it references aren’t making claims of sentience, but just that something of significance in the journey towards human level AI has been achieved. And the whole ‘it’s just a fancy autocomplete’ argument is missing the point. Would the author have predicted the apparently emergent behaviours of LLMs as they are scaled? Look for example at Bing’s response to this question posed on Reddit.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;ChatGPT&#x2F;comments&#x2F;110vv25&#x2F;bing_chat_blew_chatgpt_out_of_the_water_on_my&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;ChatGPT&#x2F;comments&#x2F;110vv25&#x2F;bing_chat_...</a><p>Sure it’s ‘just statistics’ but so what? If in the near future LLMs become so advanced that they will be able to (suitably prompted) manipulate humans it <i>will</i> be a rubicon moment.<p>Sure, it won’t be a ‘human like’ intelligence, but was that really what anyone expected?<p>Human intelligence and consciousness are emergent properties. Machine intelligence as it develops will be emergent too, it’s not something we can make confident predictions on based on the underlying principles. In fact, given that the evidence suggests we make choices before we’re consciously aware of them, how do I know for certain that the underlying mechanism driving what I’m writing in this comment isn’t statistical?