That's a fascinating list and far beyond my capacity to argue, so thanks for that.
> To claim GPT is therefore 'meeting the mark'
Pretty sure the vast majority of people who are attributing some kind of personhood to GPT aren't doing so from an analytical perspective, but because the conversational generation exceeds whatever human-detection threshold they have that is inbuilt. Asking for evidence of genuine inductive reasoning won't make a dent on those feels. The nature of the systems involved lack any reasoning, deductive or inductive. It's all statistics.
The rest of the positive camp is claiming that "the mark" is the production of useful work, I think. At most, this is seen as a step towards AGI, not the finish line.
Well said. I think we are in agreement that most "it's alive" is feeling based hype because people see a step function (I want to avoid saying a quantum leap) in quality compared to e.g. Markov chain games on a corpus.
I would dispute that this is a step toward AGI. I agree it's what proponents are saying. I just think they're wrong. We are no closer to understanding what underpins intelligence and this statistics model isn't informing us of the basis of it, or a purported AGI in particular.
> To claim GPT is therefore 'meeting the mark'
Pretty sure the vast majority of people who are attributing some kind of personhood to GPT aren't doing so from an analytical perspective, but because the conversational generation exceeds whatever human-detection threshold they have that is inbuilt. Asking for evidence of genuine inductive reasoning won't make a dent on those feels. The nature of the systems involved lack any reasoning, deductive or inductive. It's all statistics.
The rest of the positive camp is claiming that "the mark" is the production of useful work, I think. At most, this is seen as a step towards AGI, not the finish line.