It’s sounds like Harnad is stating outright that there’s nothing an LLM could do that would make him believe it’s capable of understanding.
At that point, when someone is so fixed in their worldview that no amount of empirical evidence could move them, there really isn’t any point in having a dialogue.
It’s just unfortunate that, being a prominent academic, he’ll instill these views into plenty of young people.
Yes, there’s an empirical way to make me (or anyone) believe an LLM is understanding: Ground it in the capacity to pass the robotic version of the Turing Test: i.e., walk the walk, not just talk the talk, Turing indistinguishable from a real, understanding person (for a lifetime, if need be). A mere word-bag in a vat, no matter how big, can’t do that.
Just listened to this.
It’s sounds like Harnad is stating outright that there’s nothing an LLM could do that would make him believe it’s capable of understanding.
At that point, when someone is so fixed in their worldview that no amount of empirical evidence could move them, there really isn’t any point in having a dialogue.
It’s just unfortunate that, being a prominent academic, he’ll instill these views into plenty of young people.
Yes, there’s an empirical way to make me (or anyone) believe an LLM is understanding: Ground it in the capacity to pass the robotic version of the Turing Test: i.e., walk the walk, not just talk the talk, Turing indistinguishable from a real, understanding person (for a lifetime, if need be). A mere word-bag in a vat, no matter how big, can’t do that.
I think he was just taking about ChatGPT at that point, but I don’t recall exactly what he said.