101–110 of 113 posts
I feel like 90% of AI discussions online these days can be shut down with “a probabilistic syllable generator is not intelligence”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, no, it's "incorrect" in the sense that you asked it to do something, and the thing it gives you doesn't accomplish the task. I asked it "what is the PS3 game where the full version of To Kill a Mockingbird is in there?" and it responded back with "The Sabateour", when the correct answer would have been "The Darkness". That is incorrect by most definitions of the word, whether or not it's a consequence of the tr…
You're anthropomorphising too much. The machine did the correct thing; it's just that it is a prediction machine, not a magic question answering machine, so its 'correct' may not be what you wanted. > I suppose we could get into details about epistemology and ontology about the nature of what an answer "is" The machine has no concept of an 'answer'; when people call these things autocomplete on steroids, they're not…
Literally no one here disputes that the it’s a glorified autocomplete, but that is completely irrelevant to if it correctly answered a question.
I find this kind of pedantry extremely annoying because it sounds insightful without actually saying anything. Like, no shit, it’s just doing what its algorithm dictates, no one, and I mean no one disputed that. The question of correctness and incorrectness falls into “how accurately did it respond to my query?”
Maybe they should also call it "curve fitting" instead of "AI" so they don't need to call a "poor fit" a "hallucination"
Maybe they should also call it "curve fitting" instead of "AI" so they don't need to call a "poor fit" a "hallucination"
It's all very simple, eh?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, if you also assume people follow whatever advice so given. They won't, even before the covert influence effort becomes popular knowledge, as it inevitably will. This destroys consumer trust in your product after you have successfully made that product indispensable, thus opening up a previously impossible vacuum in epistemology and thus access to power.
For the record I believe it to be immoral to manipulate humanity in this way. And I also believe it might be bad for bussiness. I was just trying to explain to the guy above what I think the guy above that meant.
In general, I think it's a good example of the kind of social problem tech can make a lot worse but no better: when a society has lost its grasp of epistemology, multiplying the amount of information available, at a net decrease in quality and reliability, merely multiplies the scope of the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all very simple, eh?
Look, it's a bit late here so I don't really have time to fully refute your sophisticated argument. But let me ask you this: if AI is not curve fitting, what is it then?
I'm not saying there aren't a few possible mistakes that do become less likely if we switch to "curve fitting, but I suspect that it does not matter much either way on the most serious mistakes.