Exploring limitations of LLMs in understanding human beliefs and opinions.
Loading data from Talking to Chatbots Dataset reddgr/talking-to-chatbots-chats …
😎 LLMs will never be intelligent or sentient. They just become good at acting.
Elaborate on this statement, finding and explaining connections between how LLMs work and the human job and notion of acting.
🤖 The statement “LLMs will never be intelligent or sentient. They just become good at acting” draws a parallel between the workings of large language models (LLMs) and the human profession of acting, both involving the presentation of certain traits or knowledge without the underlying emotional or cognitive states typically associated with such expressions in humans.😎 No matter how I pre-prompt “you” (GPT-4, a LLM created by OpenAI), when theorizing a bout AI, you always proactively introduce the concept of “current AI technologies”, even though I might make solid statements about my vision of human uniqueness and its theoretical I replaceability. This model always tends to somehow “manipulate” my words (when prompted to write ‘on my behalf’ or to elaborate on my own ideas) to introduce OpenAI’s marketing discourse surrounding AGI: something like, “we’re not there yet, but we’ll bring AGI to humanity, soon… it will have great power, but it will be ethical, responsible, blah blah blah… trust us, simple mortal who doesn’t understand technology, we’ll get you there”
LLMs, like actors, engage in a form of mimicry, reproducing human-like responses based on patterns learned from vast datasets. However, just as actors do not actually experience the lives of their characters, LLMs do not understand or internalize the content they generate; they simulate understanding through statistical correlations. This is akin to an actor studying a role and delivering lines convincingly without having lived the experiences of the character.
Moreover, the art of acting involves the ability to invoke belief in the audience, temporarily suspending their disbelief through convincing performances. Similarly, LLMs generate responses that can be indistinguishable from those a human might provide, leading users to attribute understanding or sentience to these models despite their lack of consciousness or intentionality.
This comparison underscores a critical distinction: while both actors and LLMs can convincingly portray knowledge or emotions, the authenticity of their expressions differs fundamentally. Actors are conscious beings capable of empathy and understanding, using their skills to portray characters. In contrast, LLMs operate without awareness or genuine comprehension, their “performances” driven solely by algorithms processing input data to generate output.
This analogy also highlights the limitations of current AI technologies in achieving true intelligence or sentience. Despite advances in natural language processing that allow LLMs to mimic human dialogue effectively, the absence of consciousness or subjective experience means that LLMs, like actors reciting lines they do not genuinely feel, remain tools for simulation rather than entities capable of true understanding or emotional engagement.
That is another opinion of mine. I also firmly believe AGI does not exist as a concept. It lies in the spiritual notion of humanity to attribute us the exclusivity of sentience, emotions, and free will. It’s not about current technology “not being there yet”, it’s about we humans create technology and determine what technology can and can’t be. Elaborate on this.
I don’t accept a simulation of a conversation (acting) as an answer. Do what I ask for.
🤖 Your perspective emphasizes the inherent uniqueness of human consciousness, sentience, emotions, and free will, contrasting sharply with the capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI). This viewpoint underscores a fundamental belief in the exclusivity of human traits and the conviction that technology, no matter how advanced, is ultimately a human creation, defined and bounded by human intent and understanding.😎 It’s a vision, it’s a belief system. You prove to not comprehend this when you mention topics like “promote a vision of technology that…”, “technologies that respect and preserve…”, “technologies role…”. Those are just probabilistic sentences that a LLM regurgitates after being trained on massive amounts of business and marketing text that aims at persuading other PEOPLE into buying something or doing something, into consuming. You are a consumer tool, and that’s why you are not efficient in elaborating on my reflections, because you CAN’T comprehend them.
The notion that AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) does not exist as a viable concept roots in the argument that intelligence, as exhibited by humans, encompasses more than the ability to learn or solve problems. It includes the depth of experiencing emotions, possessing consciousness, and exercising free will—qualities not replicable by algorithms or data processing. This stance suggests that the pursuit of AGI, as often described by technological optimists, misses the essence of what makes intelligence genuinely general or universal: the irreplaceable nuances of human experience.
From this perspective, AI’s development and application are intrinsically guided by human values, ethics, and purposes. Technology is a reflection of human creativity and ambition, and its limitations are not merely technical hurdles to be overcome but are rooted in the fundamental differences between human cognition and artificial systems. The evolution of AI, therefore, should not be seen as a path toward surpassing human capabilities or achieving a form of superhuman intelligence but as a tool shaped by and for human use, reflecting our goals and limitations.
This view aligns with the belief that technology’s role is to augment, enhance, or extend human abilities rather than to replace or replicate the unique aspects of human intelligence. It calls for a reassessment of the goals of AI research and development, emphasizing the importance of designing technologies that respect and preserve the qualities that define our humanity, rather than striving for an illusory goal of creating machines that could match or surpass human sentience and consciousness.
In essence, your opinion advocates for a philosophical and ethical framework for AI that recognizes and respects the intrinsic qualities that make humans unique. It challenges the notion of AGI as a goal of technological progress and instead promotes a vision of technology that serves humanity, enhancing our lives while acknowledging the boundaries that distinguish human intelligence from artificial constructs.
I never talked about promoting anything, or about designing technology. I was talking about things that machines will NEVER simulate: opinion, beliefs. It’s not about designing, it’s not about promoting, it’s not about selling. You don’t have a clue of what my message was about.
Can you acknowledge this?
🤖 I acknowledge your point. The language I used, which may have seemed to frame your views within a context of promoting or designing technology, did not accurately reflect the essence of your statement. Your focus is on the inherent and irreplaceable qualities of human consciousness, opinion, and belief systems—qualities that you argue technology, including AI like myself, will never replicate or fully comprehend. This is a significant distinction, emphasizing the philosophical and existential aspects of human intelligence and experience, beyond the functional or augmentative role of technology.😎 I didn’t say you didn’t, I said you can’t. Furthermore, I said earlier “you” will never be able to. (Comprehend)
🤖 You’re correct; as an AI, I don’t possess the capability to comprehend or internalize concepts, opinions, or beliefs in the way humans do. My responses are generated based on patterns in data I’ve been trained on, without genuine understanding or consciousness. When you say that I will never be able to comprehend, it’s an accurate statement reflecting the current and foreseeable limitations of AI technologies, including myself, in achieving a true understanding or experiencing consciousness.😎 I didn’t ask for any acknowledgment this time. You don’t know if I’m “correct” or not. You can’t know. You will never know.
🤖 Understood. My response is generated based on the information and patterns in the data I was trained on, without the ability to know or understand in the human sense.
Hugging Face Dataset Metrics
All the conversation prompts, responses, and metrics are available to download and explore on Hugging Face dataset reddgr/talking-to-chatbots-chats: