ChatGPT already has “Ph.D.-level intelligence,” in that once you remove it from its extremely narrow field of expertise (assembling words into credible-sounding passages) it is wildly out of its depth, but people vastly overestimate its authority because they don’t understand what “intelligence” is.
To be clear, OP here is saying that "assembling words into credible-sounding passages" is ChatGPT's specific narrow field of expertise. Most Ph.D. candidates specialize elsewhere, though I have my doubts about Thomas Kuhn.
Exactly. The problem is that most people don't have the time or the training to default to skeptical when something is presented to them that sounds "intelligent."
Just commenting on the post as a whole, and "modern" referring to the last 50yrs or so of standardizing teaching, white washing history, and not giving people the tools to succeed beyond factory work. PHDs are almost always worthless any more for even "entry level" positions. It's hard out here.
Okay, so:
* Ph.D.s are representative of gaining a level of expertise in a narrow, specialized sub-topic of a field. This isn't due to modern standardized teaching (most Ph.D.s have not been in the student side of a standardized classroom in years), but due to the fact that we know a lot of stuff.
In order to become an expert and contribute meaningfully to a field, you have to specialize, because the amount of time and information required to attain and maintain expertise on anything broader has been insurmountable for over a century.
* The notion that Ph.D.s are useless for even "entry-level" positions has more to do with unrealistic expectations of employers who want people to come into entry-level jobs without needing any training, but for entry-level wages. It's not a reflection on the quality of the education.
Sure, but there are several PHDs that are absolutely worthless as far as entry level jobs are concerned. Arts Majors don't ever really go much higher than hoping to work in the field or a museum, but several just go broke from school. Follow your dreams, but do it smartly.
Why do you think a Ph.D. Would be pursuing an entry level job? I’m starting to think you don’t understand what these terms mean or how these systems operate. You’re talking about doctorates as if they’re bachelor’s degrees.
We don't truly understand intelligence as a species. The problem is that most people default to "if it's in writing, it must be intelligent" just like they default to "he has a PhD, he must know a lot." Most people don't understand what getting a PhD means.
There are some folks (I’m guessing mainly students & Internet autodidacts) who absolutely believe that intelligence & expertise consist in assembling words into credible-sounding passages. From 16 to 18.5 years, I was one of their number, so I can say this.
I really hate the term AI. It’s marketing bullshit. I personally don’t bribe machines can ever actually think or gain consciousness.
Skynet is impossible.
I was recently at a vendor conference where a speaker quoted Microsoft in saying Copilot has roughly a "sixth-grade" intelligence right now. Which makes sense, if you consider how most sixth graders are prone to be confidently incorrect.
I remember someone using ChatGPT to argue with me over a book which the author withdrew and redacted after he found that his primary source had falsified her data. They got ChatGPT to make an argument that we should still use the book, with a long winded explanation why.
I just blocked them.
I also blame the AI surge on folks for telling folks to use chatGPT as a psuedo search engine and claiming it's fine because "It gives you all the resources up front like a any other"
You'll know its a real PhD haver when it starts screaming 'that's doctor chatgpt!!' at anyone trying to use it.
(Thank you to all the doctorate havers who don't do this but maaan it happens to me so often at work and nope.)
