I think almost everyone is massively underestimating the near future capabilities of AI and their likely impact
Tom Scott: I tried using AI. It scared me. [video]
41–50 of 57 posts
Re: Tom Scott: I tried using AI. It scared me. [video]
#42Other than your existential crisis, how well are your Gmail backups actually working now, Mr. Scott?
Re: Tom Scott: I tried using AI. It scared me. [video]
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so. The end point of that curve is models with human like reasoning or even superhuman ability. I think we may be on the S part of the curve, but thanks to processing concerns we will be in for veeeeeerrryyyy gentle slope on that S. Capital is getting more expensive, processors getting less fast, and in general tech is burdened with a slowdown. We are in for a revolution, I believe, but one that will be…
> I don't think so. The end point of that curve is models with human like reasoning or even superhuman ability. What makes you think that?
Because we are a living example of what is eventually possible with "artificial" intelligence. If we exist, it can at least match us.
Re: Tom Scott: I tried using AI. It scared me. [video]
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sound like someone who has either never tried chatgpt, or someone who’s so scared of the consequences that it prefers to put its head in the sand. «just a text generator on steroid » is meaningless unless you define what « on steroid» means. It might as well describe a novelist’s activity or a programmer. The ability to understand enough of the relationship between words and their associated concepts in chatgpt i…
has ChatGTP created anything new? something that's is just not rewriting text?
Here's a video on cocktails that it came up with and the resultant taste tests by a master mixologist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=419no81su64
I'm pretty into cocktails and I've never heard of the ones it came up with. Admittedly, the world of cocktails is huge and every single cocktail is 'just a riff' on some other one at the end of the day. In short, these drinks are new.
Futhermore, to me it shows 'learned' innovation on the AI's part. Like, the AI got ~95% of the way there, just what a human would do when trying to create and refine drinks.
Re: Tom Scott: I tried using AI. It scared me. [video]
#45So, fellow HN users... where are we on the S curve? I think we're right before the hockey stick, just like the days of Napster. To use another analogy - The Industrial Revolution didn't make it possible to make screws, it made it possible to make a box of screws that you could sell for a dollar. Previously it took a skilled craftsman and time. No two were alike, and they tended to be individually stamped with a numbe…
That he mentions his barber using it without prompting by him means that we're at least on the part of the curve from the early mid up to the very end.
I've noticed this too with friends and coworkers. People that I would think would have no business knowing about chatGPT are already using it in their work and their lives.
Almost axiomatically, that means that we have to be in the 'mass adoption' phase to some degree.
But I don't agree. I think we're in the early shallow phase still.
'The Kids' aren't the ones using it. I'm not being left behind by the 'hip new thing' like I should be. To me, that means that the nerds are still gawking about with it, trying on new things. Once 'The Kids' get a hand on it and use it in the innocent and unabashed way that they always do, then I can say we're in the early-mid phase. And by 'The Kids', I mean not the nerds at school, but the 'It Girls' and the 'Jocks', those kinds of people. If you hear your stoner nephew talking about it, but not your stoner brother, then you're in the early-mid phase, at least to me.
Re: Tom Scott: I tried using AI. It scared me. [video]
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think so. The end point of that curve is models with human like reasoning or even superhuman ability. What makes you think that?
Because we are a living example of what is eventually possible with "artificial" intelligence. If we exist, it can at least match us.
Expert systems and various other previous artificial intelligence systems failed to rise to our level of capability. Why should we expect large language models to be different?
Re: Tom Scott: I tried using AI. It scared me. [video]
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we are a living example of what is eventually possible with "artificial" intelligence. If we exist, it can at least match us.
Expert systems and various other previous artificial intelligence systems failed to rise to our level of capability. Why should we expect large language models to be different?
I'm not really talking about LLMs specifically. I'm talking about AI as a field.
Although neural networks are capable of any form of reasoning or understanding and human language is a very strongly diverse field so I do believe LLMs are a strong contender for the production of general AI.
Lots of data.
Easy to train thanks to text being very simple.
Easy to express just about any concept or information.
Requires some amount of domain knowledge to make good prediction of what comes next.
Re: Tom Scott: I tried using AI. It scared me. [video]
#48I would guess a lot of things scare this guy. He's a clickbait youtuber who does simple stuff and tries to make it sound profound.
I mean, this conversation that is talked about in the video is pretty interesting https://www.tomscott.com/fix-gmail-labels-threads/conversati...
that is pretty crazy, actually
Re: Tom Scott: I tried using AI. It scared me. [video]
#49Does anyone out there have a link to the section of British intellectual property law that Tom refers to as "Passing On"? I can't find anything clear with a google search.
Re: Tom Scott: I tried using AI. It scared me. [video]
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
it doesn't generate new ideas, it just answers based on statistics, it will be more like a personal search assitant or a tool that helps people finding information
I'm not sure how "It just answers based on statistics" and "generating new ideas" are mutually exclusive. As a physicalist, I'd argue that the human brain "just answers based on statistics" too. It's all just semi-stochastic chains of activations in the end. Babies learn language by being exposed to many many examples of it, why shouldn't the same work for artificial intelligences? The concept of "new ideas" is also…
i only need to show a toddler what an apple is once, and he will recognize a apple in every color just fine, i dont need to train him with tons of data and error correction, and tell him "use this relu function here and sigmoid here". A toddler can also start questioning why some apples are red and other greens? and he can come with new ideas of his own, can LLM do that? no, because their answers depends on the data they have been trained for.
Im not saying it's not the future, it is, we just need the hardware, once there's a hardware cheap enough that replicates what an human does with his hands, then the days working at a factory will be over. The current AI's are perfect for copycating behavior.