How to simulate feelings and instinct in computers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kontilera
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
32 replies · 4K views
FactChecker said:
I think that AI has gone well beyond that. ChatGPT can now take the requirements for a computer program controlling simple devices and generate a fairly good program along with instructions for wiring the device. The code does benefit from some tweaking by a human.
See this.
You are missing the point.
Generating code for programs is a prime example of something that can be made by training the software in relative word frequence, sentence construction and so on. As long as there is a huge amount of programming code in the training data, chances are youll get something useful, maybe in need of minor corrections. My opening post was about an example of AI for optimizing computer code. To test conceptual understanding, I argue that the software has to reach outside of the training data, to exclud mimicry. For example, train the software on data where prime searching algorthims (and similar programs) has been excluded. If the software has a conceptual understanding of the code it writes it should be able to make decent attempts on such programs without being trained on it. Without the use of stochastical processes.
Just as we expect from out high school students.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Kontilera said:
You are missing the point.
Generating code for programs is a prime example of something that can be made by training the software in relative word frequence, sentence construction and so on. As long as there is a huge amount of programming code in the training data, chances are youll get something useful, maybe in need of minor corrections. My opening post was about an example of AI for optimizing computer code.To test conceptual understanding, I argue that the software has to reach outside of the training data, to exclud mimicry. For example, train the software on data where prime searching algorthims (and similar programs) has been excluded. If the software has a conceptual understanding of the code it writes it should be able to make decent attempts on such programs without being trained on it. Without the use of stochastical processes.
Just as we expect from out high school students.
You seem to think that combining the concepts of "steam" and "engine" would take a large leap of imagination beyond their individual properties. Maybe so, but I am not so sure.
 
FactChecker said:
You seem to think that combining the concepts of "steam" and "engine" would take a large leap of imagination beyond their individual properties. Maybe so, but I am not so sure.
I argue that in order to combine the concepts of steam and engine and thus sketch the idea of a steam engine youll need a conceptual understanding of the two words. That is, if you've never heard of the concept steam engine before.

I order to prevent the illusion of understanding by mimicing, we subtract the data describing the concept (or anything too similar) in the training set.