The human mind is not, like ChatGPT and its ilk, a lumbering statistical engine for pattern matching, gorging on hundreds of terabytes of data and extrapolating the most likely conversational response or most probable answer to a scientific question. On the contrary, the human mind is a surprisingly efficient and even elegant system that operates with small amounts of information; it seeks not to infer brute correlations among data points but to create explanations.
On the contrary, the human mind is a surprisingly efficient and even elegant system that operates with small amounts of information...
How does he know that? And how does he know the bot isn't like that?
Human mind needs a long time to learn to operate with symbolic information. Until we learn, we use terabytes of data from our senses and feedback from parents, teachers.
ChatGPT can analyze syntax in a text, just try it, I did.
And then Chomsky talks about morals? That's a really weird turn. He's saying it's a dumb machine, then criticize it for not being more commited.
In your and my mind, yes. But a cursory look online shows a lot of people, laypeople and experts, evidently read the exact same paragraph and had all sorts of objections.
In fact that seems to be the key paragraph being disputed by naysayers.
Yes, it's an inflammatory statement, but I assume you don't grow your own crops and sew your own clothes and therefore have farmed off all the physical labor required to keep you alive.
And that's only talking about physical work, the mental energy ratio is far higher. Your brain is around 2% of your bodies mass but is using around 20% of your energy output. Your brain sets up powerful filters to get rid of much information as possible. We focus ourselves on interests and close out the world around us. Just about everything you do, you can only explain in a post ad hoc method, you've simply incorporated these behaviors in to your life and likely have little to no awareness as to why you've done so.
Let the machines toil away, and let the humans be hedonistic.
"Create explanations", in the Deutschian sense, is still the missing piece of the puzzle.
I'd wager that that it's emergent. AFAIK, there is no good "reasoning/conjecture/critique" labelled dataset made public yet, but I have been seriously considering starting one.
The human mind is not, like ChatGPT and its ilk, a lumbering statistical engine for pattern matching, gorging on hundreds of terabytes of data and extrapolating the most likely conversational response or most probable answer to a scientific question. On the contrary, the human mind is a surprisingly efficient and even elegant system that operates with small amounts of information; it seeks not to infer brute correlations among data points but to create explanations.