How can these things not know what words mean? Did you not see how they created a virtual machine under chatGPT? They told it to imitate bash and they typed ls, and cat jokes.txt and it outputted things completely identical to what you'd expect. Look it up. https://www.engraved.blog/building-a-virtual-machine-inside/
I don't see how you can explain this as not knowing what words mean. It KNOWS.
I used chatGPT to solve a sqlite bug involving a query that was taking 4 seconds to run. I pasted the query and it identified many possible issues with the query including the offending problem (it was missing an index on a timestamp).
It also passed 3/4 of our companies interview process including forging a resume that passed the recruiter filter.
That being said, I COMPLETELY agree with you that chatGPT will not disrupt anything. Your example cases are completely as VALID as are my example cases.
chatGPT is, however, the precursor to the thing that will disrupt everything.
bias infests research as well as seen by the replication crisis. So you being a researcher doesn't give more credence to your words especially given that the state of current research cannot fully comprehend what these ML models are doing internally.
I do agree that we can't ascribe cognition to machine learning.
But I also believe that we can't ascribe that it's NOT cognition. Why? Because we don't even truly understand what "Knowing" or cognition is. We can't even ascribe a quantitative similarity metric.
What we are seeing is that those inputs and outputs look remarkably similar to the real thing. How similar it is internally is not a known thing.
That's why even though you're an NLP researcher, I still say your argument here is just as niave as the person who claims these things are sentient. You simply don't know. No one does.
I don't think you read my comment or the article carefully. The extreme end of that article, giving up all your identity is my "sick mindset". That is the ultimate conclusion.
You might as well not comment if you're not going to read anything. I don't care for you comment otherwise. Better for you to start actually thinking and stop mistaking that for "over thinking", because your reply indicates you haven't.
Valid info. I have not considered it. Economic status and size are factors in female attraction. Asians are generally higher in economic status, statistically speaking, and latin americans are generally poorer and smaller in size so they are more comparable in stature to East Asians. This makes logical sense to what I already know. However it doesn't invalidate the German Sheppard theory. North Americans are generally larger than East Asians and the wealth gap is not as large.
Still all of this is besides the point. Without knowing the latin american thing, my conclusion and theory is valid in terms of the probability of being true. But people dismiss it because of bias, not because of evidence or logic.
I don't see how you can explain this as not knowing what words mean. It KNOWS.