Home About Subscribe Search Member Area

Humanist Discussion Group


< Back to Volume 34

Humanist Archives: Aug. 1, 2020, 8:32 a.m. Humanist 34.202 - on GPT-3

                  Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 34, No. 202.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                   Hosted by King's Digital Lab
                       www.dhhumanist.org
                Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org


    [1]    From: Bill Benzon 
           Subject: Philosophers On GPT-3 (updated with replies by GPT-3) - Daily Nous (21)

    [2]    From: Gabriel Egan 
           Subject: Re: [Humanist] 34.199: on GPT-3 (34)


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: 2020-07-31 13:19:36+00:00
        From: Bill Benzon 
        Subject: Philosophers On GPT-3 (updated with replies by GPT-3) - Daily Nous

Willard and fellow Humanists:

The Daily Nous had philosophers write about GPT-3:

https://dailynous.com/2020/07/30/philosophers-gpt-3/

Here is GPT-3's considered response (cherry picked by Raphaël Millière):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B-OymgKE1dRkBcJ7fVhTs9hNqx1IuUyW/view

Bill Benzon
bbenzon@mindspring.com

917-717-9841

http://new-savanna.blogspot.com/ 
http://www.facebook.com/bill.benzon 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stc4blues/
https://independent.academia.edu/BillBenzon
http://www.bergenarches.com 


--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: 2020-07-31 11:36:23+00:00
        From: Gabriel Egan 
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 34.199: on GPT-3

Dear HUMANISTs

Tim Smithers writes:

 > Deep Blue II, the machine, could
 > not say anything about its "chess
 > playing;" it couldn't explain what
 > it did; it couldn't tell you anything
 > about chess, it's history, cultural
 > significance, about other important
 > players, what the rules of the game
 > are ...  all things people who play
 > chess well can tell you about, and, in
 > my view, are essential and integral
 > to a proper understanding of what
 > we mean by "plays chess."

Suppose an alien arrives on Earth and
we cannot communicate with it but it sees
a chess board and initiates a series of
games that consistently beat our best
players. It would seem by your criteria, Tim,
that you would have to say that this alien
does not play chess. Is that right? What
about a deaf, mute, illiterate human:
also not playing chess for the reasons
you give?

Regards

Gabriel Egan





_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php


Editor: Willard McCarty (King's College London, U.K.; Western Sydney University, Australia)
Software designer: Malgosia Askanas (Mind-Crafts)

This site is maintained under a service level agreement by King's Digital Lab.