Abstract
This paper explores aspects of GPT-3 that have been discussed as harbingers of artificial general intelligence and, in particular, linguistic intelligence. After introducing key features of GPT-3 and assessing its performance in the light of the conversational standards set by Alan Turing in his seminal paper from 1950, the paper elucidates the difference between clever automation and genuine linguistic intelligence. A central theme of this discussion on genuine conversational intelligence is that members of a linguistic community never merely respond “algorithmically” to queries through a selective kind of pattern recognition, because they must also jointly attend and act with other speakers in order to count as genuinely intelligent and trustworthy. This presents a challenge for systems like GPT-3, because representing the world in a way that makes conversational common ground salient is an essentially collective task that we can only achieve jointly with other speakers. Thus, the main difficulty for any artificially intelligent model of conversation is to account for the communicational intentions and motivations of a speaker through joint attention. These joint motivations and intentions seem to be completely absent from the standard way in which systems like GPT-3 and other artificial intelligent systems work. This is not merely a theoretical issue. Since GPT-3 and future iterations of similar systems will likely be available for commercial use through application programming interfaces, caution is needed regarding the risks created by these systems, which pass for “intelligent” but have no genuine communicational intentions, and can thereby produce fake and unreliable linguistic exchanges.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Alexeev (Alex) V. ( 2020). 2020 Review (GPT-3) | AI as poet, novelist, and dramaturg. February 1. Medium, https://medium.com/merzazine/2020-review-gpt-3-ai-as-a-poet-novelist-and-dramaturg-6cf9fff1c21.
Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us: Language and evolution. MIT Press.
Block, N. (2018). If perception is probabilistic, why does it not seem probabilistic? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0341
Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.
Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious mind. In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press.
Fairweather, A., & Montemayor, C. (2017). Knowledge, dexterity, and attention: A theory of epistemic agency. University Press.
Figdor, C. (2020). Shannon + Friston = content: Intentionality in predictive signaling systems. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02912-9
Floyd, J., & Bokulich, A. (2017). Philosophical explorations of the legacy of Alan Turing. Springer.
Graham, G. (1998). Philosophy of mind: An introduction (2nd ed.). Basil Blackwell.
Greco, J. (2010). Achieving knowledge: A virtue-theoretic account of epistemic normativity. Cambridge University Press.
Haladjian, H. H., & Montemayor, C. (2015). On the evolution of conscious attention. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 22(3), 595–613.
Haladjian, H. H., & Montemayor, C. (2016). Artificial consciousness and the consciousness-attention dissociation. Consciousness and Cognition, 45, 210–225.
Lauret, J. (2020). GPT-3: The first artificial general intelligence? Towards Data Science-online publication. https://towardsdatascience.com/gpt-3-the-first-artificial-general-intelligence-b8d9b38557a1.
Legg, S., & Hutter, M. (2007). Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence. Minds and Machines, 17, 391–444.
Lindsay, G. W. (2020). Attention in psychology, neuroscience, and machine learning. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 14, 29.
Marcus, G., & Davis, E. (2019). Rebooting AI: Building artificial intelligence we can trust. Pantheon Books.
Marcus, G. and Davis, E. (2020). GPT-3, Bloviator: OpenAI’s language generator has no idea what it’s talking about. MIT Technology Review, August 22.
Marr, B. (2020). What is GPT-3 and why is it revolutionizing artificial intelligence? Forbes Enterprise-Tech, October 5. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2020/10/05/what-is-gpt-3-and-why-is-it-revolutionizing-artificial-intelligence/?sh=6f41712a481a.
Mele, A. (2003). Motivation and agency. Oxford University Press.
Mindt, G., & Montemayor, C. (2020). A roadmap for artificial general intelligence: intelligence, knowledge, and consciousness. Mind and Matter, 18(1), 9–37.
Monk, R. (1990). Ludwig Wittgenstein: The duty of genius. Penguin Books.
Montemayor, C., & Haladjian, H. H. (2017). Perception and cognition are largely independent, but still affect each other in systematic ways: Arguments from evolution and the consciousness-attention dissociation. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00040
Montemayor, C. (2019). Inferential integrity and attention. Frontiers in Psychology: Consciousness Research, 10, 2580.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450.
Potts, C. (2020). Is it possible for language models to achieve language understanding? Medium-online publication. https://medium.com/@ChrisGPotts/is-it-possible-for-language-models-to-achieve-language-understanding-81df45082ee2.
Romero, A. (2021). A complete overview of GPT-3—the largest nerual network ever created. Towards Data Science-online publication. https://towardsdatascience.com/gpt-3-a-complete-overview-190232eb25fd
Russell, S. (2019). Human compatible: Artificial intelligence and the problem of control. Random House.
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424.
Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C. J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Panneershelvam, V., Lanctot, M., Dieleman, S., Grewe, D., Nham, J., Kalchbrenner, N., Sutskever, I., Lillicrap, T., Leach, M., Kavukcuoglu, K., Graepel, T., & Hassabis, D. (2016). Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529, 484–489.
Silver, D., Schrittwieser, J., Simonyan, K., Antonoglou, I., Huang, A., Guez, A., Hubert, T., Baker, L., Lai, M., Bolton, A., Chen, Y., Lillicrap, T., Hui, F., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., Graepel, T., & Hassabis, D. (2017). Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge. Nature, 550, 354–359.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Harvard University Press.
Stich, S. (1984). Is behaviorism vacuous? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 647–649.
Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 443–460.
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Kaiser, L. & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, 5998–6008.
Ward, R. (2013). Attention, evolutionary perspectives. In H. E. Pashler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the mind (Vol. 1, pp. 53–56). Sage Publications.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Blackwell. translated by G. E. M. Anscombe.
Wu, W. (2011). Attention as selection for action. In C. Mole, D. Smithies, & W. Wu (Eds.), Attention: Philosophical and psychological essays (pp. 97–116). Oxford University Press.
Wu, W. (2014). Attention. Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Montemayor, C. Language and Intelligence. Minds & Machines 31, 471–486 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09568-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09568-5