Comment by ToucanLoucan

> ToucanLoucan, as someone who doesn't know what a Mechanical Turk is, you do not need to post LLM output that proves my point to someone who already knows quite well what it is and gave you two wikipedia references and a suggestion to ask ChatGPT, but NOT a suggestion to post the response.

I didn't ask it what a Mechanical Turk was (because I know), I asked it if comparing it to a Mechanical Turk is a reasonable take, to which it said what I posted. You probably would've put that together if you bothered to read it, but I must admit, this is a good application for LLMs. Now I don't need to feel insulted that I took time to write something and it was then ignored by my interlocutor.

> and you're certainly not advancing your argument that LLMs are not knowledgeable by posting LLM output that's more knowledgeable than yourself,

In the text you're using in an attempt to skewer me, it literally states it is not knowledgeable: "Emergent behavior: While I don’t “understand,” I can simulate reasoning, creativity, and emotional nuance to a surprising degree." And it is correct. It can simulate those things. Simulate.

It also, previous to that, said: "Surface-level fluency: I generate responses that look like understanding, much like the Turk appeared to play chess. • No internal consciousness: I don’t “know” things in the human sense. I don’t have beliefs, intentions, or awareness. • Pattern-based output: My responses are based on statistical associations, not comprehension or reasoning in the way humans experience it." Again, it seems aware, in whatever sense of awareness you want to ascribe to these things, that it is not knowledgeable. And it readily states it is not sharing in anything approaching a human experience.

So if you're so dead set on seeing LLMs as knowledgeable intelligent machines, you might first try convincing the LLM that's true, since it itself doesn't seem to think it is.