Let me be facetious here. If GPT-4 was truly all that, it would be classified and at work in Ukraine (or somewhere) right now. Not running Akinator-tier promo marketing gigs.
It's not about GPT-3 or GPT-4 per se. It's about the rate of progress and the development of Theory of Mind.
GPT-4 plays ~1400 level chess having never been taught the rules of the game explicitly (except for potentially reading them on one of it's ingested webpages)
I’ve been thinking a lot about how AI can reduce some of the world’s worst inequities. But he fails to mention in the risks how AI can also be a cause of increase for some of the world's worst inequalities due to failure to have representative datasets, or simply by creating an ever increasing technological gap between classes(just 2 off the top of my head).
Job displacement: AI could automate low-skilled jobs, leading to job losses for low-income workers while increasing demand for high-skilled workers, widening the income gap.
Digital divide: Unequal access to advanced AI technologies could exacerbate existing inequalities between developed and developing nations, as well as between urban and rural populations.
Concentration of wealth: As AI technologies are developed and controlled by a few large companies, wealth may become increasingly concentrated, leading to greater economic inequality.
Education disparity: Access to high-quality education and training in AI-related fields may be limited to individuals with financial resources, further increasing income inequality.
Biased AI systems: AI algorithms that inadvertently reinforce existing social biases can disproportionately affect disadvantaged populations, perpetuating and worsening economic inequality.
Unequal access to benefits: The benefits of AI-driven productivity gains may not be equally distributed across society, leading to increased income disparities.
Monopolistic behavior: AI-enabled companies with significant market power may use their technology to stifle competition, which could result in fewer opportunities for small businesses and entrepreneurs, contributing to economic inequality.
Financial markets: AI-driven financial technologies may disproportionately benefit those with access to capital and financial knowledge, further widening the wealth gap.
Healthcare: AI-powered diagnostics and treatments may not be accessible to everyone, especially those in low-income communities or developing nations, resulting in health disparities that could exacerbate economic inequality.
Surveillance and privacy: AI-powered surveillance technologies may disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, limiting their economic opportunities and reinforcing existing inequalities.
Yeah, I think that we need to probe how much these models are merely memorising their inputs rather than learning a more genereal, compressed (sortof) representation. Honestly though, ten years ago NLP was using Bag of Words and Markov Chains, it's pretty phenomenal how far it's come. To be fair, I mostly agree with your main point, but it's still remarkably impressive progress in a relatively short period of time.
It is impressive and useful technology but Gates is misleading by implying that the LLM is doing "critical thinking", when it is doing the opposite -- shallow regurgitation of "information" (i.e. tokens).
Experiments have demonstrated that GPT-4 does have a basic theory of mind, so it does not simply regurgitate.
AI has been around for as long (or even longer, depending on how you see it) as the internet (counting the start of internet as the beginning of TCP/IP).
As someone who has done some research on AI in the last 25 years I find this current iteration amazing. 25 years ago when I was just starting my Bachelor's degree, AI was in a sort of "hiatus". The "great" AI procedures were mostly rule based systems. We read about MYCIN and similar expert systems and how they could do amazing stuff. We also read about AI generating new strategies for Backgammon. That was amazing. Bu…
Well, the 70's AI is out there optimizing the software you write; making sure you can use all the bandwidth on your network links; routing people over the maps they have on their pockets.
The 90's AI is out there making trucks and ships cheaper to run; reducing the amount of wood, steel, plastics, etc our industries use; helping design bridges or microprocessors; optimizing your code at runtime inside the CPU.
The 10's AIs aren't out there a lot. Maybe it is because of lack of time. But it's just research that moves on, the value stays.
I guess one of my own issues with AI, is seeing how the tools we already have, have been twisted by greedy, ruthless people (many of whom are on this very venue). I was one of the people that started off in tech with dreams of a digital Nirvana. I ignored the "negative naysayers," and sallied forth, with an open heart, and hope for the future. I'm really quite disappointed in what we've done with these marvelous tool…
I wonder if humans would behave better - or at least, be more reigned-in - if we could only interact with people we are physically close to.
The internet never had its "aha" moment like AI is now. Most people didn't know or care about it until decades into its existence.
AI has been around for as long (or even longer, depending on how you see it) as the internet (counting the start of internet as the beginning of TCP/IP).
> The rise of AI will free people up to do things that software never will—teaching, caring for patients, and supporting the elderly, for example. Every sci-fi movie show any of those jobs as replaced by AI (or robots). Probably they will not achieve the same level of connection (mostly because they will lack a human body to make expressions, at least at the beginning). Those jobs will be replaced, not because there…
I'm not holding my breath while waiting for an AI based solution that can go to elderly patient's home, give them medicine, clean their house and help them with other daily activities. This would require highly advanced robotics and ability to maneuver in varying physical environments, so far we have nothing even close to that.
I believe AI might instead replace a lot of work done by journalists, software devs, managers and other office workers who mainly produce and manipulate text. Then there people may be re-educated to become care workers.
I guess one of my own issues with AI, is seeing how the tools we already have, have been twisted by greedy, ruthless people (many of whom are on this very venue). I was one of the people that started off in tech with dreams of a digital Nirvana. I ignored the "negative naysayers," and sallied forth, with an open heart, and hope for the future. I'm really quite disappointed in what we've done with these marvelous tool…
I’ve adopted a similarly pessimistic view, that even if I’m one of the ones who gets to keep my job, “it’s” all going to shit from here. I’m surprised and confused to say the least.
> In my lifetime, I’ve seen two demonstrations of technology that struck me as revolutionary. > The first time was in 1980, when I was introduced to a graphical user interface > The second big surprise came just last year. I’d been meeting with the team from OpenAI I guess it's not surprising since Microsoft was late to the game with IE, but it's interesting he never mentions "the internet" in this list.
Maybe he doesn't mention it because he didn't think it was revolutionary when it first appeared. From https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/14/news/skeptics-cite-overlo... ( https://archive.is/r4F8T ) > Even Bill Gates, the founder and chairman of Microsoft Corp. and widely regarded as the crown prince of the World Wide Web, was taken unawares by the Internet's grassroots acceptance. > In his book, "The Road Ahead" (not av…
Gates favored an approach he (and others) referred to as the information superhighway vs the post 1980s modern Internet. He regarded the Internet as a precursor to what he called the information superhighway in the book.
It's not that he didn't see something equivalent to the Internet happening, he disagreed with exactly how it would look (who would own/control it is more likely what he had in mind given the context; I think he wanted a more closed off network that companies like Microsoft could thoroughly dominate).