In the words of Richard Stallman, it's "pretend intelligence".
It's clear that the language being produced may be structurally correct and some of the facts as well but any real grasp of what is being said is largely missing.
This is a direct result of a design built around probability. The overriding objective is *plausibility* --- not to be confused with either facts or intelligence. This is something that perhaps Alan Turing did not fully consider,
If pertinent facts happen to dominate in it's database on a particular topic of interest, then the results may be somewhat accurate. But if not, then the results can just as easily be fabricated fiction --- but stated very confidently.
Bottom Line: Do you feel lucky? And if luck is required, are you really dealing with intelligence or just the appearance of it?
Just to give the article's answer to the clickbaity title:
The evidence (and the question) is not clear, but they have an opinion.
https://archive.ph/8G6gb
The evidence is clear
In the words of Richard Stallman, it's "pretend intelligence".
It's clear that the language being produced may be structurally correct and some of the facts as well but any real grasp of what is being said is largely missing.
This is a direct result of a design built around probability. The overriding objective is *plausibility* --- not to be confused with either facts or intelligence. This is something that perhaps Alan Turing did not fully consider,
If pertinent facts happen to dominate in it's database on a particular topic of interest, then the results may be somewhat accurate. But if not, then the results can just as easily be fabricated fiction --- but stated very confidently.
Bottom Line: Do you feel lucky? And if luck is required, are you really dealing with intelligence or just the appearance of it?