/sarcasm/
The real question is : will it eat us ? (Like in matrix) if we believe there is only one dominant intelligence
How close is AI to human-level intelligence?
11–20 of 96 posts
Re: How close is AI to human-level intelligence?
#12Is there a distinction between LLM’s and AI, or do we consider LLM’s to exhibit intellect? I remeber Sam Altman pointing out in some interview that he considers GPT to be a reasoning machine. I suppose that if you consider what GPT does to be resoning, then calling it AI is not so far fetched. I feel it’s more like pattern recognition though rather than reasoning, since there’s no black box ”reasoning” component in a…
I've been annoyed by the redefinition of artificial intelligence since the LLM boom started. The term AI has no place being used to describe LLMs as far as I can tell, unless what goes on inside the black box of an LLM is drastically different than how they are described to function.
Predicting the next token based on a compressed dataset of human generated content isn't intelligence in any meaningful definition of the word. That doesn't mean LLMs aren't impressive or useful for certain tasks, but they aren't intelligent.
When Altman describes them as reasoning machines he's either lying (likely for marketing purposes) or using a different definition of "reasoning" than most people would. The latest release of GPT is attempting to mimic reasoning, but what they're actually doing is having one system act as an automated prompt engineer in between the GPT model and the end user.
Re: How close is AI to human-level intelligence?
#13From the article: > “Bad things could happen because of either the misuse of AI or because we lose control of it,” says Yoshua Bengio, a deep-learning researcher at the University of Montreal, Canada. God, I hate phrases like this. We've already lost control of it. We don't have any control. AI will evolve in the rich medium of capitalism and be used by anyone due to its ease of use and even laws will be unable to re…
We are not in control either of the nukeclear power which is available for quite a few nations, since a lot of decades now, as well. Soo... c'mon cheer up most probably is some kind of simulation anyway.
Re: How close is AI to human-level intelligence?
#14Is there a distinction between LLM’s and AI, or do we consider LLM’s to exhibit intellect? I remeber Sam Altman pointing out in some interview that he considers GPT to be a reasoning machine. I suppose that if you consider what GPT does to be resoning, then calling it AI is not so far fetched. I feel it’s more like pattern recognition though rather than reasoning, since there’s no black box ”reasoning” component in a…
I've been annoyed by the redefinition of artificial intelligence since the LLM boom started. The term AI has no place being used to describe LLMs as far as I can tell, unless what goes on inside the black box of an LLM is drastically different than how they are described to function. Predicting the next token based on a compressed dataset of human generated content isn't intelligence in any meaningful definition of t…
What redefinition? SVMs were part of AI and they're far simpler. The field of AI has covered basic algorithms for decades before LLMs.
Re: How close is AI to human-level intelligence?
#15Is the question even that relevant? I would say the best models already have better than human culture. Maybe not skills, but culture for sure.
Wikipedia has better culture. Shadow libraries and private trackers have more culture than you may need in a lifetime.
Would love to see a model trained on wikipedias only
Re: How close is AI to human-level intelligence?
#16I can't believe this article is being published in Nature. The article is flawed, plagued with assumptions that I guess the author doesn't even notice (like what do we really mean by AGI, the epistemological problems/assumptions to intelligence, the real nature of thinking, the real functioning of the human brain).
It is really curious that the philosophical community is addressing the debate on what AI really is and its implications, but the computer science community does not read almost anything about philosophy.
Regarding the fear of 'losing control of it', I would suggest reading the works (or at least about) of Gunther Anders and Bernard Stiegler. Technology (in this case AI) is inseparable from human being, to the point that we already lost control of technology, its use and its meaning (like, 100 years ago).
Another thing that surprises me is how the computer science community is blind to the work of Hubert Dreyfus and other contemporary philosophers that analyze AI from and epistemological and philosophical perspective. But, actually, I should no t be surprised: we barely study philosophy in any scientific discipline when attending university.
This rhetoric about how AI is similar to the human brain is starting to be a bit boring. It assumes a very simplistic view on the brain and turns a deaf ear to other types of research (like language acquisition and embodiment, mind/brain duality, epistemological basis for knowledge acquisition, ontological basis of causal reasoning...).
And above all, what is really upsetting is the techno-optimism behind this way of thinking.
Re: How close is AI to human-level intelligence?
#17From the article: > “Bad things could happen because of either the misuse of AI or because we lose control of it,” says Yoshua Bengio, a deep-learning researcher at the University of Montreal, Canada. God, I hate phrases like this. We've already lost control of it. We don't have any control. AI will evolve in the rich medium of capitalism and be used by anyone due to its ease of use and even laws will be unable to re…
[dead]
Re: How close is AI to human-level intelligence?
#18Is there a distinction between LLM’s and AI, or do we consider LLM’s to exhibit intellect? I remeber Sam Altman pointing out in some interview that he considers GPT to be a reasoning machine. I suppose that if you consider what GPT does to be resoning, then calling it AI is not so far fetched. I feel it’s more like pattern recognition though rather than reasoning, since there’s no black box ”reasoning” component in a…
I remember expert systems being considered AI, so LLMs ought to meet that bar as well. They aren't AGI, though, which is a higher one, I guess. I'm not in love with the various terms and the various ways people define them. Even LLM --at what point is it "large"? In a rapidly changing area of both academic and lay understanding, it's understandable for terminology to be a bit unstable. I don't think it's reasonable to say LLMs do reasoning, however. Even when mimicking incredible feats of intelligence, they don't have a grasp of what is true or how truth flows from a set of facts to any other.
Re: How close is AI to human-level intelligence?
#19Re: How close is AI to human-level intelligence?
#20Is there a distinction between LLM’s and AI, or do we consider LLM’s to exhibit intellect? I remeber Sam Altman pointing out in some interview that he considers GPT to be a reasoning machine. I suppose that if you consider what GPT does to be resoning, then calling it AI is not so far fetched. I feel it’s more like pattern recognition though rather than reasoning, since there’s no black box ”reasoning” component in a…
I've been annoyed by the redefinition of artificial intelligence since the LLM boom started. The term AI has no place being used to describe LLMs as far as I can tell, unless what goes on inside the black box of an LLM is drastically different than how they are described to function. Predicting the next token based on a compressed dataset of human generated content isn't intelligence in any meaningful definition of t…
> I've been annoyed by the redefinition of artificial intelligence since the LLM boom started
If there's any redefinition, it's being pushed further out. AI was previously used to describe far simpler systems, like expert systems and Deep Blue's alpha–beta search.
> Predicting the next token based on a compressed dataset of human generated content isn't intelligence in any meaningful definition of the word
I'd claim generating the next token is a sufficiently general task such that success can depend on essentially arbitrary intellectual capabilities. For instance, reliably completing unseen equations like `2335 + 4612 = ` requires ability to perform basic arithmetic.
> using a different definition of "reasoning" than most people would. The latest release of GPT is attempting to mimic reasoning
I think most people initially have some relatively solid definitions of "learning", "reasoning", "language use", etc. similar to how it's being used there - just that when non-humans meet those definitions there's an inclination to create some distinction between "learning" and an elusive "actual learning".
For instance, if something changes to refine its future behavior in response to its experiences (touch hot stove, get hurt, avoid in future) beyond the immediate/direct effect (withdrawing hand) then it can "learn". I think even small microorganisms can learn, with the main requirement being that it has some mutable state (can't learn if you can't change). Yet, others will object that "machine learning" is a misnomer because it's "not actual learning" and instead "just mimicking/simulating".