presumably they've already fed it all the code in the world (including a load they probably aren't licensed to)
The problem I've seen is that, maybe like the author has been writing, it's making sh*t up. That's not untrue, sometimes I didn't give it all dependent classes and it tried to think sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly what those were (such as method signatures, instance members, etc.) I wish it would have asked me some details rather than trying to figure things out. The guys at OpenAI have still a lot to do, but the current status is very impressive
it doesn't understand anything, it doesn't make deductions
it's a probability model, and I understand how it's implemented perfectly well, thank you
This is data at a scale OpenAI did not have access to before.
Kind of agree?
On the one hand we don't even have a roadmap toward reliable AI.
On the other, if we ever plug an LLM into something that has memory, acquires experiences, does experiments, observes the outcome and adjusts its worldview in response, consciousness might fall out of that. And writing good code might not even require consciousness.
- as a function of an independent human soul
- as the fundamental substrate on which the rest of the universe is built
- as a byproduct/secondary phenomenon of physical processes
In the latter two cases I believe that the question of whether GPT is conscious is immaterial. In either case it is functioning in the same medium we all are when we talk, think, write. In the first case it is not, and the question is thornier.
One can debate whether either those is necessarily a consequence of consciousness, but nonetheless those kinds of qualities are what people are aiming at when they wonder about conscious AI.
