Ask HN: Does this GPT-4 response suggest it has emergent intelligence?
I've been playing with GPT4 after reading Sparks of AGI by Microsoft recently. It is kind of blowing my mind. Here is an example question I asked earlier:

Question

I have a thought experiment. For the sake of the thought experiment, answer my question by stepping through the facts of the scenario explaining the thought process involved. Discuss any violation of physical laws and any ethical concerns this scenario raises.

A future time traveler was bedridden in the hospital and eventually received a heart transplant saving his life. He was given his wife's heart after she fell victim to a horrific car accident in the year 2010.

In the year 2020, the time traveler invents a time machine that can return him to the year 2010, a week before her accident. This time machine works by returning all atoms in the universe to their previous state in the year 2010. The only exception to this rule is for the atoms that make up the mass of the time traveler. The time traveler's atoms remain with the time traveler in both times.

He goes back in time to warn her of her car accident, but made a critical error when thinking through the ramification of his time travel. Can you identify the error the time traveler made by returning to 2010? Assuming the time traveler arrived standing before his wife, describe in detail what you think they would both experience?

Response

The time traveler made a critical error by not considering the consequences of his heart transplant. In the thought experiment, he received his wife's heart in 2010 after her accident. However, when he travels back to 2010, the atoms that make up his wife's heart are still inside his body.

Since the time machine works by returning all atoms in the universe to their previous state in 2010, except for the atoms that make up the mass of the time traveler, the wife would not have her heart back when the time traveler arrives in 2010. This means that the wife would not be alive, as her heart is still with the time traveler.

The thought process of the time traveler would have included the consequences of traveling back in time, such as preventing the accident, and how his actions could potentially alter the future. However, he didn't take into account the unique nature of his heart transplant, which has led to this tragic outcome.

This scenario violates the conservation of mass, as the atoms that make up the wife's heart exist both inside the time traveler's body and in her body in 2010 (assuming her heart would reappear). Moreover, since the time machine only alters the state of the universe's atoms except for the time traveler, it could be argued that the mass of the wife's heart should not change, leading to the impossibility of this situation.

From an ethical standpoint, the thought experiment raises concerns about the potential consequences of time travel and meddling with the past. Even if the time traveler had good intentions, his actions have led to a situation where his wife is now dead without her heart. This could lead to further unintended consequences, as the future from which he traveled would likely be altered, affecting countless lives and the timeline of history.