# The next page in the book of AI evolution is here, powered by GPT 3.5, and I am very, nay, extremely impressed **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Tags:** ai\ **Created:** [December 2, 2022, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-next-page-in-the-book-of-ai-evolution-is-here-powered-by-gpt-3-5-and-i-am-very-nay-extremely-impressed/975945 "2022-12-02T22:54:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 696
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2023, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-next-page-in-the-book-of-ai-evolution-is-here-powered-by-gpt-3-5-and-i-am-very-nay-extremely-impressed/975945/696 "2023-02-18T11:23:48Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > > > How does he know this is how humans operate? > > There seem to be lots of reasons to think so. For one, if I tell you, ‘imagine a blue dog jumping in pink grass’, if you don’t happen to suffer from aphantasia, you will be able to produce an appropriate mental image, even if you’ve never seen either a blue dog or pink grass befors. So what? As already noted in a previous post, ChatGPT understands exactly what this means. This part of its analysis is a matter of basic semantics. Without getting into quibbling about what “understanding” means, the point is that if it was capable of producing images the way its generative LLM produces relevant text responses – which is by no means a stretch – it would produce the appropriate image. This gives no insight into human cognition, or how the latter does or does not differ from ChatGPT. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Additionally, we sometimes struggle to put our thoughts into words: thus, whatever thoughts are, they are not words (the preceding would be incoherent otherwise), and words are used to express them. Except that a longstanding hypothesis has held that thoughts involve _ **the manipulation of symbols** _, and that the symbols have an internal mental grammar and semantics. Jerry Fodor has called this **[“the language of thought”](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/language-thought/)**, or _Mentalese_. The hypothesis gained renewed attention and acceptance following Fodor’s 1975 book _The Language of Thought_. The concept is a cornerstone of the computational theory of mind, and suggests that there may be more parallels than previously believed between human and machine cognition. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-next-page-in-the-book-of-ai-evolution-is-here-powered-by-gpt-3-5-and-i-am-very-nay-extremely-impressed/975945)._