In 1950, Alan Turing published a paper called “ Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” Fifteen years after his ideas helped spawn the world’s first computers, he proposed a way of determining whether these new machines could think. People think they can do things they cannot.” “On the other hand, they are not there yet. researchers of the past decade, referring to the new wave of chatbots. “These systems can do a lot of useful things,” said Ilya Sutskever, chief scientist at OpenAI and one of the most important A.I. The Turing test does not consider that we humans are gullible by nature, that words can so easily mislead us into believing something that is not true. When we see a flash of humanlike behavior in a pet or a machine, we tend to assume it behaves like us in other ways, too - even when it does not. Part of the problem is that when a bot mimics conversation, it can seem smarter than it really is. Like similar systems that came before, they tend to complement skilled workers rather than replace them. Although they can match or even exceed human performance in some ways, they cannot in others. They sometimes spew nonsense and cannot correct their own mistakes. These bots are pretty good at certain kinds of conversation, but they cannot respond to the unexpected as well as most humans can. Even people building the technology acknowledge this point. ![]() They are not intelligent - at least not in the way that humans are intelligent. It may even generate images as well as words.Īnd yet these bots are not sentient. ![]() Privately, OpenAI has built a system, GPT-4, that is even more powerful than ChatGPT. When some people talk to these bots, they even describe them as sentient or conscious, believing that machines have somehow developed an awareness of the world around them. Because ChatGPT can write just about anything, including term papers, universities are worried it will make a mockery of class work. The lab said more than a million people had used it. ChatGPT, a bot released in November by OpenAI, a San Francisco lab, leaves people feeling as if they were chatting with another person, not a bot. It depends on whether the people asking the questions feel convinced that they are talking to another person when in fact they are talking to a device.īut whoever is asking the questions, machines will soon leave this test in the rearview mirror.īots like Franz Broseph have already passed the test in particular situations, like negotiating Diplomacy moves or calling a restaurant for dinner reservations. He did not realize until it was revealed several weeks later that he had lost to a machine. He had spent nearly 10 years playing Diplomacy, both online and at face-to-face tournaments across the globe. de Graaff, a chemist living in the Netherlands, finished fifth. When Franz Broseph joined a 20-player online tournament at the end of August, he wooed other players, lying to them and ultimately betraying them. Kennedy and Henry Kissinger, combining military strategy with political intrigue as it recreates the First World War: Players negotiate with allies, enemies and everyone in between as they plan how their armies will move across 20th-century Europe. The game is a classic, beloved by the likes of John F. The handle was a joke - the Austrian emperor Franz Joseph I reborn as an online bro - but that was the kind of humor that people who play Diplomacy tend to enjoy. ![]() įranz Broseph seemed like any other Diplomacy player to Claes de Graaff. ![]() To hear more audio stories from publications like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |