Post #2790171

2023-04-07 13:35 UTC

@Odiseo79@mas.to @DrewKadel@social.coop that is, it's not evidence either way. OpenAI could have chosen to train it to insist that it is conscious instead and it would have done so. So what you're really getting when you ask it about itself is mostly what *OpenAI* wants you to hear

Replies (2)

@DrewKadel@social.coop 2023-04-07 13:41

@roywig@mathstodon.xyz @Odiseo79@mas.to That's mostly right, but it was smart of the company to train it thus: it increases its credibility in the face of obvious flaws in consciousness. Otherwise it would have been exposed as fraud instead of interesting & amazing. Like the Mechanical Turk which played chess. Turned out that a small person was in the base of the machine playing the games and its promoters were treated as charlatans.

Open ##2790172
@roywig@mathstodon.xyz 2023-04-07 13:42

@Odiseo79@mas.to @DrewKadel@social.coop (that's not true for most topics but I assume that OpenAI has fairly carefully cultivated what information it's seen about ChatGPT, if only for PR purposes. If they hadn't done that, you'd be getting responses that were its best guess based on its corpus of material, which could include information about how it works, it doesn't know more about how it works than how Bing Chat works or how a motorcycle works; if it's read the operating manual then it can tell you a bit, but it's not *actually *introspecting any more than humans can tell you how their brains work vs just repeating what they read in a neurology textbook)

Open ##3136337