81–90 of 523 posts
This article depresses me in how wrong it is. It’s like reading about someone in Ancient Greece writing about how fire works. I’m almost certain we are doomed - which one could argue is a rather conservative philosophical opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is correct. Expect 10000x more articles like this over the next couple years.
What percentage do you think of these will be LLM generated?
2023 will be the last year when people will be able to distinguish AI written text because it's comparatively worse than human writing. 2024 and beyond, human writing will be distinguishable because it's noticeably worse than AI writing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The AI is digital. It is 1s and 0s and lives in discrete changes. Living creatures are not digital.
So if you implemented it with analog circuits that would satisfy your criteria?
My cynical AI opinion is that if it truly was revolutionary, we would be seeing private companies or governments use it internally to massively boost their productivity or achieve otherwise impossible feats. Instead, all we're seeing are consumer products or half-baked integrations that are another way to further centralize data collection. Talks about all-powerful, malevolent AI or requesting to halt AI development…
Revisit this comment in 2 months, 6 months, a year. It’s mainly a matter of when OpenAI allows widespread access to the gpt-4 api and developers have time to build stuff.
GPT4 appears very intelligent when you discuss program code with it. It simply crazy; it can write SNOBOL4 code to extract a field from /etc/passwd. When you discuss other things, it goes off the rails a lot more. For instance, I have had it quote some passages of classic English poetry to me, stating blankly that those passages contain certain words. The passages did not contain any traces of those words or even rem…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We just can’t accept that we might solve ourselves. People are understandably desperate to understand their experiences as more than an encoding of a thing that might be explained. And all of our surprising wins and awful mistakes had explainable reasons, dammit; it wasn’t just a misfiring of trained statistical networks!
Or we just don't know how brains work very well and we shouldn't act like we do.
But fundamentally speaking, evidence suggests that the nature of reality follows simple rules. That everything obeys simple algorithmic rules. And therefore, suggests humans are just as robotic as anything else, including the earliest of computers and current "AI". We don't look at it that way, as we don't fully understand the underlying complexity which gives rise to our behavior (whereas for computers we do), so we conveniently call ourselves intelligent as a way to appease the thirst for a satisfactory explanation for our behavior, and are dissatisfied with calling current AI, as true AI.
Thus, I argue, depending on what one wants to define intelligence, AI does not innately exist and can never exist if everything truly obeys simple rules, or, AGI has existed long before humans have come to exist as it's merely a concept which we are free to define.
My cynical AI opinion is that if it truly was revolutionary, we would be seeing private companies or governments use it internally to massively boost their productivity or achieve otherwise impossible feats. Instead, all we're seeing are consumer products or half-baked integrations that are another way to further centralize data collection. Talks about all-powerful, malevolent AI or requesting to halt AI development…
All of these arguments seem to think that the brain isn't also generating a statistical ordering of semantic words and actions. Obviously the brain has a way more complex network of subsystems with various specialties than the artificial models we have today and is able to generalize language, math, and positional reasoning and mix it with the older parts of the brain for reward and training mechanisms and it can do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It feels more like smarter automation to me. Yep. Elevators used to be proof that machines can think. Then compilers, and chess, and go, and search, and … The problem with AI is that as soon as it works, we stop thinking about it as “artificial intelligence” and it becomes “just automation”. Then AI moves to the next goalpost.
The problem seems to be with defining good tests for intelligence. FWIW, because GPT4 answers have a detectable pattern, they should presumably fail the Turing test. At some level, intelligence requires logic, rationality, and conceptualization, all of which are topics which have evaded clear definition despite millennia of philosophy directly addressing the issues.