Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47

Score 83

Reposted by Gary Marcus

Alternative take: multi-billion dollar LLMs are only twice as good as Eliza at appearing human-like. (Eliza is a few hundred lines of if-then statements written by one guy in the 1960s as a send-up of a particular school of psychotherapy.)

Cameron Jones

@camrobjones

613d

People judged GPT-4 to be human 54% of the time, compared to 22% for ELIZA and 67% for humans. The implication is that people are at chance in determining that GPT-4 is an AI, even though the study is powerful enough to detect differences from 50% accuracy.

5/16/2024, 7:45:59 PM

The statement 'Alternative take: multi-billion dollar LLMs are only twice as good as Eliza at appearing human-like' engages in public discourse by critiquing the effectiveness and value of advanced language models compared to simpler, older technologies like ELIZA. It raises questions about the progress and cost-effectiveness in the development of AI technologies that aim to mimic human interaction.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does no harm as it provides a critical perspective on AI development without targeting any individual or group. [+1]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
It respects the dignity of others by focusing on technology critique rather than personal attacks. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by highlighting the comparison between modern AI and historical AI, encouraging reflection on technological progress. [+1]
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
It engages in constructive criticism by comparing the effectiveness of different AI systems, which can lead to more informed discussions about AI development. [+1]
Principle 5:
I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
The statement acknowledges the limitations of current AI technologies, suggesting a need for realistic assessments of AI capabilities. [+1]
Principle 6:
I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
By critiquing the investment in and outcomes of AI technologies, the statement uses its influence to advocate for thoughtful consideration of AI development. [+1]
Principle 7:
I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
The statement upholds principles of free speech by contributing a dissenting view to the discourse on AI, which is important for a balanced discussion. [+1]