No. The answer, as is usually the case with these things, is that we are anthropomorphizing a step too far.
No, you are taking it too far before walking it back to get clicks.
I wrote in the headline that these models “think they’re people,” but that’s a bit misleading.
“I wrote something everyone will know is bullshit in the headline to get you to click on it before denouncing the bullshit in at the end of the article as if it was a PSA.”
I am not sure if I could loathe how ‘journalists’ cover AI more.
Journalistic integrity! Journalists now print retractions in the very article where the errors appear
Such a clickbaity article.
Here’s the meat of it:
Have they finally achieved consciousness and this is how they show it?!
No. The answer, as is usually the case with these things, is that we are anthropomorphizing a step too far. These models don’t care about what is and isn’t random. They don’t know what “randomness” is! They answer this question the same way they answer all the rest: by looking at their training data and repeating what was most often written after a question that looked like “pick a random number.” The more often it appears, the more often the model repeats it.
Can we stop calling LLMs for AI yet?
LLMs are AI. But then again, so are mundane algorithms like A* Pathfinding. Artificial Intelligence is an extraordinarily broad field.
Very few, if any, people claim that ChatGPT is “Artificial General Intelligence”, which is what you probably meant.
It’s a meaningless marketing term. It’s used to describe so many different technologies that it has become meaningless. People just use it to give their tech some SciFi vibes.
