Jeff Bezos on AI (1998) [video]

Whose intelligence programmed this system?

> Do you remember the name of the AI?

If I recall correctly - Go AI.

They used a simple regular pattern and the system failed to beat the human. It didn't [learn] from this.

All such systems use a set of rules (whether specific or pattern based or mathematically based - there is some form of logic involved, even when using probabilistic functions), you and I can make choices based on illogical decisions - irrational decisions if you like. No computational system is capable of irrational decisions, the decisions may be surprising but of you look at the code then that option was always there somewhere, It cannot take a path that does not exist.

We can create a completely new path not previously available.

I see.

Well, that's too generic to even be searchable.

> They used a simple regular pattern and the system failed to beat the human. It didn't [learn] from this.

Anything written like that would struggle against an amateur.

The machine learning based Go AI don't do that, and do beat humans.

> All such systems use a set of rules (whether specific or pattern based or mathematically based - there is some form of logic involved, even when using probabilistic functions), you and I can make choices based on illogical decisions - irrational decisions if you like. No computational system is capable of irrational decisions, the decisions may be surprising but of you look at the code then that option was always there somewhere, It cannot take a path that does not exist. We can create a completely new path not previously available.

Whatever standard I use for logical or illogical decisions, wherever I put that line, humans and AI seem to be on the same side.

We have electrical impulses flowing though messy networks, crossing tiny chemical barriers where they can be influenced by neurotransmitters; to me, that's not different enough from information flowing through an artificial neural network with weights and biases that have been automatically modified through feedback after winning and losing millions of games to say that the machine "isn't learning" — or that humans and machines aren't on the same side of "logical", at the fundamental lowest level we can't violate chemistry any more than transistors can violate physics, at the highest level the real logic of each can be random.

AI are inhuman, certainly, but still learning.

…

Just to check, you are aware that the weights and biases of an artificial neural network are basically never set by humans? That this process has to be automated?

Who created you? Whose understanding underpins you? Asking these questions about you is as irrelevant as asking it about the LLM.

Just because books, educations your teachers, the internet and your parents and the environment shaped everything you know doesn't preclude your membership into the category of things that are capable of understanding.

>Does it? Or is this a result of the intelligence of the human beings involved in building the LLM?

It does understand you. The intelligence of human beings who built it aren't directly involved as it was trained on external data.

>Did the LLM actually invent anything? Or was this result directly based on you and your intelligence with the recorded knowledge of all the human sources involved in the solution?

Does a human actually invent something or is it directly based on recorded knowledge?

You're asking irrelevant questions. Humans do not create things out of thin air either. Humans also invent things by composing existing knowledge to form concepts. The inventing that LLMs can do is equivalent in totality to our understanding of the word "invent"

>I haven't called it a parlour trick. All I am saying is that there is no intelligence in these systems. Human intelligence built them, but these systems in and of themselves have no intelligence.

Totally false. Not only are you wrong but experts in AI including the father of modern AI disagree with you completely and utterly.

If I copied your brain and replicated exactly that brain is "from human intelligence" but that copy of your brain is still an intelligence independent of it's origins and where it got it's knowledge.

>We do of course build many intelligent systems all the time, they are called children.

It's like you're eating your own logic. We also build intelligent systems called LLMs. Same concept.

I disagree.

Thought experiment: design a circuit which has as many inputs and outputs as a biological neurone, such that it always maps inputs to outputs in the same way (including the observation that this isn't a static map but one which changes over time), then connect them as neurons are in one of us.

While clearly nothing like an natural brain on a cellular level, I believe this is a sufficient similarity to be "the same parlour tricks".

The question then is: how close does the design actually need to be, while not losing anything of importance?

Perceptrons were only ever a toy model, so they may well be insufficient; but on the other hand, for a sense of scale, GPT-3 is about the complexity of a rodent brain rather than a human brain — and that suggests that humans could learn to be simultaneous experts in many dozens of fields and languages with a mere tenth of a percentage point of our brains if only we lived long enough to read the entire internet.

Which matters most — neurons, connective structure, learning environment, or something else — is, I think, still an open question. But even between all the differences, AI collectively are general purpose enough to at least suspect these things have got a lot of similarities where it matters.

Good voice transcription AI already do that too; that's why they work best if they know which language they're operating in, as that means they can use the language to create a model of the most likely words.

I think the most recent WWDC from Apple even has a video about adding custom vocabulary for their speech engine to pick up on that covered some details in this exact topic, though I can't search right now.