61–70 of 83 posts
Stop calling everything a robot while you are at it. Once marketing folk get their paws on terms they can lose or expand their meaning. It's just the way it is.
But the horse bolted and now everyone calls them drones, including the manufacturers of consumer quadcopters. The name "quadcopter" is so clunky it had no chance against the zippy, effortless "drone".
AI should be synonymous with machine sentience IMHO - anything less is corporate advertising.
Machine Learning? We all know machines are dumb, it's no surprise when the output is dumb.
The AI marketing hype may hamper the whole sector in the long run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the challenges faced by ChatGPT was in seeing it produce conversational-style output instead of simply the most common words that it saw. I'm not sure your definition really clears up how reasoning or thinking differ from "basic" statistical processes. Granted, perhaps it is not explainable. If it were we would understand it well enough to replicate it.
> One of the challenges faced by ChatGPT was in seeing it produce conversational-style output instead of simply the most common words that it saw. Do you have a source for that? I've implemented GPT from scratch and I don't see anywhere that doesn't just take the current output + input as attention and produces the next word. The loss being if it correctly guessed what would be the next word according to context and…
AI should be synonymous with machine sentience IMHO - anything less is corporate advertising.
Calling it “AI” is important for those who run it. Call it “ML” and the connotation is “software monetizing publicly shared data at scale without consent”, call it “AI” and the connotation is “but you wouldn’t stop a human learning on what is public would you”. I can’t believe how many people are falling for this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see people saying this all over the internet, but for the entire history of AI, Machine Learning has either been the only, or the most effective method by far of solving actual problems. Everyone who thinks otherwise should read this. http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html
Ultimately the only thing that holds true about AI is Tesler's Theorem: Artificial intelligence is whatever hasn't been done yet Machine Learning is only still artificial intelligence because we haven't figured it out. Ultimately ML is just fancy control theory. Once the field is sufficiently explored, it will slowly stop being AI and will start being treated as a subset of control theory instead. I doubt it'll happe…
> Moreover, he emphasizes, human happiness should not be an afterthought when developing technology. And what we have in practice is: the biggest usage of AI in the wild is to plagiarize art and artists are super unhappy about that, to the point of coming up with lawsuits and whatnot. What I think happens next is: actual general intelligence emerges accidentally somewhere between the lines in some of those deep learn…
When we say things like "the top 1% captured 2/3 of the world's wealth gains over the past 3 years" it also implies the fungibility of the 99% is growing, and the core root cause is worldscale automation and AI. Their ability to accumulate wealth relies less and less on human labor and more on capturing knowledge capital and IP.
Even the 1% is itself a Pareto curve, with the top .1% accumulating about 1/3 of wealth gains in the past decade.
This extremely tiny group pf humans is today's "AGI", they literally control the world.
Certainly real AGI will be even more proficient at exploiting the same capitalist loopholes they have to enter their ranks.
As people with genuine technical knowledge and expertise, I think we have a responsibility to at least try to put a damper on that kind of breathless hyperbole, and being clearer about how we refer to these programs is one simple way we can do so.