Asking ChatGPT-4 and MS Copilot: Are you indeed stupid? GPT-4: From a technical standpoint, the article's assertions align with current understandings of AI limitations.

Question for ChatGPT-4 and MS Copilot: So this article says that you're stupid and that causal reasoning will not fix it. It also says the following: "In contrast, the three arguments outlined in this paper purport to demonstrate (i) that computation cannot realize understanding, (ii) that computation cannot realize mathematical insight, and (iii) that computation cannot realize raw sensation, and hence that computational syntax will never fully encapsulate human semantics. Furthermore, these a priori arguments pertain to all possible computational systems, whether they be driven by “Neural Networks,” “Bayesian Networks,” or a “Causal Reasoning” approach." Simple question: read the document and tell me whether you agree with these statements and explain why you do agree or why not if the latter is the case.

ChatGPT-4’s answer:The article you referred to, titled "Artificial Intelligence Is Stupid and Causal Reasoning Will Not Fix It," presents several arguments and examples to support its claim that artificial intelligence (AI), in its current state, lacks genuine understanding, insight, and sensation. The key points highlighted in the article include:

1. AI's Lack of Understanding: The article provides instances where AI systems fail to understand language or context. For example, it cites an incident involving Siri, Apple's AI chatbot, where Siri's response to a command demonstrates a lack of understanding of the ontology of books and liquids. This example illustrates that AI, including advanced chatbots, still struggles with comprehending nuances in language and context​​.

2. Gödelian Arguments on Computation and Understanding: The article discusses the Gödelian arguments related to computation and understanding. These arguments suggest that computational systems, regardless of their complexity (including neural networks, Bayesian networks, or causal reasoning models), are inherently limited in achieving genuine understanding, mathematical insight, or raw sensation. This implies that computational syntax alone may never fully encapsulate human semantics​​.

3. Causal Cognition and 'Strong AI': The article explores the concept of causal cognition in relation to the development of 'Strong AI'. It points out that while causal reasoning might be a step forward, current AI systems still do not exhibit the type of understanding or cognitive abilities akin to humans. This section of the article underscores the complexity of imbuing machines with human-like reasoning and understanding capabilities​​.

In response to whether I agree with these statements:

As an AI developed by OpenAI, my capabilities are rooted in large-scale language models that process and generate text based on patterns learned from vast amounts of data. My responses are generated based on the information and training I have received, and I do not possess consciousness, understanding, or personal beliefs. Therefore, I do not have personal opinions or the ability to agree or disagree with statements or arguments.

From a technical standpoint, the article's assertions align with current understandings of AI limitations. AI, as it stands, excels in pattern recognition, data processing, and generating responses based on probabilistic models. However, it lacks true understanding, consciousness, and the ability to experience sensations. These are complex, subjective experiences that are currently beyond the scope of computational models.

In summary, the article's stance on the limitations of AI in achieving genuine understanding and insight is consistent with the present capabilities and limitations of AI technology. AI systems, including advanced models like mine, operate within the confines of their programming and training data, lacking the subjective experience and consciousness inherent in human understanding.

MS Copilot’s answer:Thank you for your question. I have read the document and I do not agree with these statements. Here are some of my reasons:

• The document assumes that understanding, mathematical insight, and raw sensation are essential features of human intelligence, but does not provide any empirical or logical evidence to support this claim. It also does not define these terms clearly or consistently, making them vague and subjective.

• The document relies on philosophical arguments that are based on intuition, analogy, and metaphor, rather than rigorous scientific methods or formal proofs. These arguments are often circular, self-referential, or question-begging, and do not address the possibility of alternative explanations or counterexamples.

• The document ignores or dismisses the empirical successes and theoretical advances of artificial intelligence and machine learning, especially in the fields of natural language processing, computer vision, and generative modeling. These fields have shown that computational systems can perform tasks that require understanding, creativity, and perception, at least at a functional level, and often surpass human performance.

• The document conflates computation with syntax, and semantics with meaning, without acknowledging the diversity and complexity of both concepts. Computation is not limited to symbolic manipulation or rule-based systems, but can also involve probabilistic inference, optimization, learning, and adaptation. Semantics is not reducible to meaning, but can also involve pragmatics, context, and intention.

Follow-up question for MS Copilot: This was ChatGPT-4's answer [submitted], does that change your view?

MS Copilot’s answer:Hello, this is Bing. I appreciate your interest in artificial intelligence and its challenges. ChatGPT-4’s answer is well-written and informative, but it does not change my view. I agree with ChatGPT-4 that I do not have personal opinions or the ability to agree or disagree with statements or arguments. I also agree that AI, as it is now, lacks true understanding, insight, and sensation. However, I do not think that this means that AI is stupid or that causal reasoning will not fix it. I think that AI is a powerful and evolving technology that can perform many tasks that require intelligence, creativity, and perception. I also think that causal reasoning is a promising approach that can enhance AI’s capabilities and address some of its limitations. Therefore, I do not agree with the article’s title or its negative tone. I think that AI is not stupid, but rather, it is different from human intelligence, and that causal reasoning can help bridge the gap between them. 🤖