I like this argument because it also highlights how these large models are completely unlike the human experience. Humans bumble around learning through quite limited experiences until they learn enough to arrive at providing for themselves (hopefully). These AIs needed to learn all of human output in order to do a human job. That means that either a) human brains are filled with ancestral genetic knowledge that allows them to interact with their environment (of which tehre is little evidence that we are filled with genetic knowledge), or b) our brains work completely differently from these AI contraptions.
AI is just someone else's intelligence
151–160 of 170 posts
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#152I feel that the big hidden implication that these kinds of articles are trying to say is "AI is not real intelligence", further implying something along the lines of "AI will never be conscious" (as it's hard to come up with another definition of "real" intelligence except the-human-kind). I'd like to propose a counterargument: Assumptions: Theory of evolution is true. The primordial single-cell organism from which w…
> The primordial single-cell organism from which we all evolved was not conscious
There's the faulty assumption. We assume that high-intensity human consciousness is the only kind, despite abundant animal evidence to the contrary. The more reasonable assumption is that dead matter is also conscious, below a currently detectable threshold.
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#153This site identifies me as Russian (I am not) and all it shows to me is some anti-putin propaganda in Russian language instead of at least proper html markup. Screw you zdziarski for doing this to your visitors even to Russian ones! Information must be free to anyone despite of race, territory, political views or anything else or you are no much better than the side you are against.
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#154I feel that the big hidden implication that these kinds of articles are trying to say is "AI is not real intelligence", further implying something along the lines of "AI will never be conscious" (as it's hard to come up with another definition of "real" intelligence except the-human-kind). I'd like to propose a counterargument: Assumptions: Theory of evolution is true. The primordial single-cell organism from which w…
Thinking machines, like ChatGPT, do not have any intelligence because they cannot choose their own thoughts. We give them thoughts to think by our inputs and commands. Therefore _we_ give them intelligence by our inputs. Any measure of (textual) intelligence we have can be output by these machines. For example, we can ask it to do 4th grade arithmetic or graduate level mathematics. But you are correct, eventually we…
> they cannot choose their own thoughts
can YOU? Isn't that just electricity following the laws of physics?
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#155Imagine if I found Boeing 777 in wild with all tooling in hanger but no other humans, just me there.
Can chatgpt help me repair this airplane and make it skyworthy with i knowing nothing about planes?
If it can it means, we can really replace most of the technicians today who diagnose and fix issues in different ways machinery with just chatgpt and intern.
There are some people who always figure out what to put in Google search go diagnose issues in machinery or system, they will run dozens or more searches and get idea about what they are working with and suddenly they can fix the issues they wanted to fix.
Does it mean these googlefu technical guys can now be replaced by average highschcooler + chatgpt
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#156I feel that the big hidden implication that these kinds of articles are trying to say is "AI is not real intelligence", further implying something along the lines of "AI will never be conscious" (as it's hard to come up with another definition of "real" intelligence except the-human-kind). I'd like to propose a counterargument: Assumptions: Theory of evolution is true. The primordial single-cell organism from which w…
There's a less 'western' view of consciousness that it's not contained in any one thing, but a common thread of the universe itself. This may not be as 'woo' as it seems at first, since when we scientifically analyze an 'individual' it falls apart under scrutiny. Why does this pattern of electrons make me distinct from someone else? What is 'me' exactly?
I find your comment incredibly refreshing to be honest. Especially on HN.
I think a lot of people in the west would strongly, strongly benefit with getting more acquainted with it. I will add a warning though, it's not always a pretty journey.
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#157I feel that the big hidden implication that these kinds of articles are trying to say is "AI is not real intelligence", further implying something along the lines of "AI will never be conscious" (as it's hard to come up with another definition of "real" intelligence except the-human-kind). I'd like to propose a counterargument: Assumptions: Theory of evolution is true. The primordial single-cell organism from which w…
What bothers me more is that it’s more like “this isn’t amazing because it’s just xyz,” when in fact it’s amazing that it is just xyz yet does what it does. The fact we’ve produced a (perhaps poor) simulacrum of the collective mind of humanity by feeding it the collective online works of humanity is frankly amazing. Anyone who argues about stochastic parrots has lost the capacity to dream. I’m also a bit of a hippy i…
“People usually consider walking on water or in thin air a miracle. But I think the real miracle is not to walk either on water or in thin air, but to walk on earth. Every day we are engaged in a miracle which we don't even recognize: a blue sky, white clouds, green leaves, the black, curious eyes of a child—our own two eyes. All is a miracle.” ― Thich Nhat Hanh
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#158I predict it'll all come crashing down once people start having skin in the game. (Right now, it's a toy, the source for a million overheated news articles and opinions.) ChatGPT can pass the Bar. Okay, have it draw up a contract and have the parties sign it—skin in the game. When an omitted comma can cost millions[1], what will an LLM's hallucinations wrought? [1] https://kagi.com/search?q=missing+comma+millions&r=u…
If by "skin in the game" you mean not having any human oversight, then sure there will be problems. But we already are seeing ChatGPT used to deliver real value. For example, I've used it to help me take care of my parents-in-law. Help answer questions, interpret test results, etc... It's been great and paid for itself 100X (if not 1000X) already. Also started using it to diagnose a car issue I had and it helped me g…
One of the much-touted aspects is that it'll create programs for you (or aspects of programs, if you prefer). Eventually, one suspects, you can specify decent requirements and get a significant volume of code that realizes those.
Do you deploy it? The overheated hype suggests, "Ship it!" More measured people would say that you test it in a sandbox environment. I've heard some say that they'd review the code in addition to testing. The end result is something running in an end user or customer's computer.
If your program goes down, does ChatGPT provide support? No, of course not. You'll need people to troubleshoot and resuscitate the program. (Or maybe it'll be self-healing, smh)
If a bug arises (can a bug even happen in ChatGPT code?) then you'll need someone to verify the bug; to address the issue with the end user or customer; to re-prompt with the additionally specified requirement (or I suppose ChatGPT will propose the requirement after a prompt indicating the bug in this fantasy); and then to re-deploy the program.
If it's an ecommerce site and the program has a security vulnerability (if that's even possible, smh), then you need someone to recognize the intrusion, determine the vulnerability, re-prompt with the vulnerability specified, and deploy the updated version. Replace "security vulnerability" with "fraud transaction" and repeat.
I can hear your question, "how is that different from today since we experience all of the above with people," and the immediate answer is "accountability." You can't fire ChatGPT or even yell at it. It's as if you slide requests under a closed door and get stuff back the same way.
The whole setup requires trust—same as today—except that it's a full-throated trust. You either succumb to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ or you spend 2x (or more) verifying the result. (I'll just throw out some of my other concerns without elaboration: a) there's more to deploying code then just generating it, b) much of modern programming is integration, and c) the training models will constantly evolve so the same prompt at time x might yield a very different program at time y.)
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#159I predict it'll all come crashing down once people start having skin in the game. (Right now, it's a toy, the source for a million overheated news articles and opinions.) ChatGPT can pass the Bar. Okay, have it draw up a contract and have the parties sign it—skin in the game. When an omitted comma can cost millions[1], what will an LLM's hallucinations wrought? [1] https://kagi.com/search?q=missing+comma+millions&r=u…
A first year in a law firm doesn't just draw up a contract and everyone blindly signs it. A first year at a law firm is an expensive GPT-4.
Good lord! This is your view of a human being that has completed 7–10 years of college after 12 or so years of education, passed a difficult Bar exam, interviewed with employees of a law firm, and experienced decades of perceptual, conceptual, and existential interaction with reality and society? "Expensive GPT-4"
(This is where my "AI" fear mostly comes from: glib assessments of its ability coupled with devaluing of actual human intelligence. That, and a singularity-like cult treating it as oracular.)
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you, then, agree that a machine that is built to work in the same manner as that single-cell organism (which I assume should be possible with the current technological level humans are at) is also conscious? That path would lead to a conclusion that all matter is, in some way, conscious. I don't disagree, but I find that such definition of consciousness diverges from what we usually mean by it - a walking, talking…
>Do you, then, agree that a machine that is built to work in the same manner as that single-cell organism (which I assume should be possible with the current technological level humans are at) is also conscious? No, not without serious proof.
But where is the serious proof that single cell organisms are conscious?
(Can I even prove that I'm myself conscious?)