Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI

Post by oska » Sun, Jun 30, 2024, 10:27 AM UTC

bubblyworld wrote: post #50

oska wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will never be, and can never be, "artificial intelligence". (The creation of consciousness is impossible.) It's a fun/interesting device in science fiction , just like the concept of golems (animated beings) are in folk tales. But it's complete nonsense to talk about it as a possibility in the real world so yes, the label of 'machine learning' is a far, far better label to use for this powerful and interesting…

I'll happily engage in specifics if you provide an argument for your position. Here's mine (which is ironically self-defeating but has a grain of truth): single-sentence theories about reality are probably wrong.

Post by bubblyworld » Sun, Jun 30, 2024, 10:31 AM UTC

oska wrote: post #51

bubblyworld wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll happily engage in specifics if you provide an argument for your position. Here's mine (which is ironically self-defeating but has a grain of truth): single-sentence theories about reality are probably wrong.

I just went back and added a parenthetical statement after my first sentence before seeing this reply (on refresh). > The creation of consciousness is impossible. That's where I'd start my argument. Machines can 'learn', given iterative training and some form of memory but they can not think nor understand. That requires consciousness, and the idea that consciousness can be emergent (which it is my understanding that…

Post by hhh » Sun, Jun 30, 2024, 10:42 AM UTC

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #16

aurareturn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m still waiting for SalesForce to integrate an LLM into Slack so I can ask it business logic and decisions long lost. Still waiting for Microsoft to integrate an LLM into outlook so I can get a summary of a 20 email long chain I just got CCed into. I don’t think the iPod comparison is a valid one. People only have so much time to listen to music. Past a certain point, no one has enough good music they like to put i…

> Still waiting for Microsoft to integrate an LLM into outlook Given that Microsoft this year is all-in on LLM AI, this is surely coming. But perhaps it will be a premium, paid feature?

Post by bubblyworld » Sun, Jun 30, 2024, 10:48 AM UTC

oska wrote: post #54

bubblyworld wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I guess I'd start my retort by saying that it can't be impossible, because here we are talking about it =P

No, you don't have any proof for the creation of consciousness, including human consciousness (which is what I understand you are referring to). In my view, and in the view of major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc) plus various philosophers, consciousness is eternal and the only real thing in the universe. All else is illusion. You don't have to accept that view but you do have to prove that consciousness can be c…

Post by cerved » Sun, Jun 30, 2024, 10:51 AM UTC

eysgshsvsvsv wrote: post #40

fxtentacle wrote: post #13

To me, this reads like a very reasonable take. He suggests to limit the scope of the AI problem, add manual overrides in case there are unexpected situations, and he (rightly, in my opinion) predicts that the business case for exponentially scaling LLM models isn't there. With that context, I like his iPod example. Apple probably could have made a 3TB iPod to stick to Moore's law for another few years, but after they…

Is there a reason why memory was used and not compute power as an example? I don't understand how cherry picking random examples from past explain future of AI. If he think business needs does not exist he should explain how he arrived at that conclusion instead of a random iPod example.