> it is possible to extract various types of information…
According to what definition of “extract information” are these ChatGPT agents extracting information?
Even granting a sense in which the above claim is true (perhaps limited to cases where the yielded text is actually true of the user), you make repeated claims that the agents can “predict,” “analyze,” and “infer.” There is more to prediction, analysis, and inference than the representation in natural language of those things. Just because ChatGPT produces sentences which have those linguistic forms (and even if those sentences are true) does not mean we can rightly climb ChatGPT can actually perform those activities. This is a problem with so much of the commentary around ChatGPT: it can produce the natural language outputs of some cognitive processes, but it does mean it performs those processes per se.
And that is fine! ChatGPT can plausibly be described as performing its own very special and powerful kind of generalized reasoning, I just think we should be careful attributing to it processes just because it can produce the corresponding linguistic forms.
Put another way, words like “inference” have a dual meaning: they refer to a type of utterance with a certain form and they refer to a specific process of reasoning. Production of the former does not prove the presence of the latter.
Along similar lines, why say your “Psychoanalyst” agent was “designed… [with] 20 years of experience in the field of profiling”? In what sense is that even remotely true? Better just to say “it was inspired by an expert with 20 years of experience, and we hope it performs with that level of competence.” But then why “20 years”? Would performance at the level of a 30-year professional be considered failure?
According to what definition of “extract information” are these ChatGPT agents extracting information?
Even granting a sense in which the above claim is true (perhaps limited to cases where the yielded text is actually true of the user), you make repeated claims that the agents can “predict,” “analyze,” and “infer.” There is more to prediction, analysis, and inference than the representation in natural language of those things. Just because ChatGPT produces sentences which have those linguistic forms (and even if those sentences are true) does not mean we can rightly climb ChatGPT can actually perform those activities. This is a problem with so much of the commentary around ChatGPT: it can produce the natural language outputs of some cognitive processes, but it does mean it performs those processes per se.
And that is fine! ChatGPT can plausibly be described as performing its own very special and powerful kind of generalized reasoning, I just think we should be careful attributing to it processes just because it can produce the corresponding linguistic forms.
Put another way, words like “inference” have a dual meaning: they refer to a type of utterance with a certain form and they refer to a specific process of reasoning. Production of the former does not prove the presence of the latter.
Along similar lines, why say your “Psychoanalyst” agent was “designed… [with] 20 years of experience in the field of profiling”? In what sense is that even remotely true? Better just to say “it was inspired by an expert with 20 years of experience, and we hope it performs with that level of competence.” But then why “20 years”? Would performance at the level of a 30-year professional be considered failure?