<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>nullish_signal</author><text>ChatGPT enjoys the Essay format, In my experience asking for basic emacs help (kill line, copy&amp;#x2F;paste, show line numbers in a php file even though init.el says show them for all langs... :) 
Very useful, sometimes outdated, very wordy.&lt;p&gt;But after a few rounds of &amp;quot;please reduce your message length to 20% of the standard&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;long messages inconvenience me&amp;#x2F; due to my dyslexia&amp;quot; (truth&amp;#x2F;lie), &amp;quot;your last message could have just been &amp;#x27;{{shortened}}&amp;#x27; instead of also bringing up the command you successfully helped me with 3 messages ago&amp;quot;, etc etc. Even as you ask it to shorten message length, it continued apologizing and also reminding me of past advice :)&lt;p&gt;After 4-5 attempts, it gave me a nice 2 sentences sort of like &amp;quot;I will be more concise, and not bring up old information unless it is useful to solve a new problem&amp;quot;
I said &amp;quot;Thank you&amp;quot;, chatGPT spends a while thinking, gets to 2 sentences, thinks a bit, then the chat box re-formatted as if passed a shorter string than expected, and that was that.&lt;p&gt;Then next chat it forgot all about brevity xD I love it</text><parent_chain><item><author>jgilias</author><text>Maybe silly, but this is how I treat chatGPT. I mean, I don’t actually think it’s conscious. But the conversations with it end up human enough for me to not want to be an asshole to it. Just in case.</text></item><item><author>maweki</author><text>Turing said, that while you never know whether somebody else actually thinks or not, it&amp;#x27;s still polite to assume.</text></item><item><author>jameshart</author><text>We don’t know if humans possess qualia. I also don’t know if we should take humans’ word for it that they experience ‘thought processes’.</text></item><item><author>dekhn</author><text>Norvig discusses this topic in detail in &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;norvig.com&amp;#x2F;chomsky.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;norvig.com&amp;#x2F;chomsky.html&lt;/a&gt;
As you can see, he has a measured and empirical approach to the topic.  If I had to guess, I think he suspects that we will see an emergent reasoning property once models obtain enough training data and algorithmic complexity&amp;#x2F;functionality, and is happy to help guide the current developers of ML in the directions he thinks are promising.&lt;p&gt;(this is true for many people who work in ML towards the goal of AGI: given what we&amp;#x27;ve seen over the past few decades, but especially in the past few years, it seems reasonable to speculate that we will be able to make agents that demonstrate what appears to be AGI, without actually knowing if they posses qualia, or thought processes similar to those that humans subjectively experience)</text></item><item><author>trynewideas</author><text>This is a great review but it still misses what seems like the point to me: these models don&amp;#x27;t do any actual reasoning. They&amp;#x27;re doing the same thing that DALL-E &lt;i&gt;etc.&lt;/i&gt; does with images: using a superhuman store of potential outcomes to mimic an outcome that the person entering the prompt would then click a thumbs-up icon on in a training model.&lt;p&gt;Asking why the model doesn&amp;#x27;t explain how the code it generated works is like asking a child who just said their first curse word what it means. The model and child alike don&amp;#x27;t know or care, they just know how people react to it.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Peter Norvig critically reviews AlphaCode’s code quality</title><url>https://github.com/norvig/pytudes/blob/main/ipynb/AlphaCode.ipynb</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>0xdeadbeefbabe</author><text>Pretty sure it&amp;#x27;s an informational zombie.</text><parent_chain><item><author>jgilias</author><text>Maybe silly, but this is how I treat chatGPT. I mean, I don’t actually think it’s conscious. But the conversations with it end up human enough for me to not want to be an asshole to it. Just in case.</text></item><item><author>maweki</author><text>Turing said, that while you never know whether somebody else actually thinks or not, it&amp;#x27;s still polite to assume.</text></item><item><author>jameshart</author><text>We don’t know if humans possess qualia. I also don’t know if we should take humans’ word for it that they experience ‘thought processes’.</text></item><item><author>dekhn</author><text>Norvig discusses this topic in detail in &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;norvig.com&amp;#x2F;chomsky.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;norvig.com&amp;#x2F;chomsky.html&lt;/a&gt;
As you can see, he has a measured and empirical approach to the topic.  If I had to guess, I think he suspects that we will see an emergent reasoning property once models obtain enough training data and algorithmic complexity&amp;#x2F;functionality, and is happy to help guide the current developers of ML in the directions he thinks are promising.&lt;p&gt;(this is true for many people who work in ML towards the goal of AGI: given what we&amp;#x27;ve seen over the past few decades, but especially in the past few years, it seems reasonable to speculate that we will be able to make agents that demonstrate what appears to be AGI, without actually knowing if they posses qualia, or thought processes similar to those that humans subjectively experience)</text></item><item><author>trynewideas</author><text>This is a great review but it still misses what seems like the point to me: these models don&amp;#x27;t do any actual reasoning. They&amp;#x27;re doing the same thing that DALL-E &lt;i&gt;etc.&lt;/i&gt; does with images: using a superhuman store of potential outcomes to mimic an outcome that the person entering the prompt would then click a thumbs-up icon on in a training model.&lt;p&gt;Asking why the model doesn&amp;#x27;t explain how the code it generated works is like asking a child who just said their first curse word what it means. The model and child alike don&amp;#x27;t know or care, they just know how people react to it.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Peter Norvig critically reviews AlphaCode’s code quality</title><url>https://github.com/norvig/pytudes/blob/main/ipynb/AlphaCode.ipynb</url></story>