Another convert who can parrot what the detractors said/are saying and that ends with a thoughts-and-prayers socially progressive umm hope this doesn’t exarcerbate hooman differences too much. See you don’t need an LLM to summarize.
My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8
31–40 of 70 posts
Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8
#32I think the author is not aware of how much the Millennium Prize proof was actually driven by a human working for years towards that problem. The AI did not solve this on its own. A world class mathematician prompted it towards the proof. In my view, this is still a human achievement, not an AI achievement. If I design a bulldozer to push a five ton rock, did I push the rock or the bulldozer? If the AI really did get…
No, no, you don't get it - soon Joe Sixpack will be prompting AGI "solve me {super difficult problem researchers couldn't solved for centuries}" and releasing their own research papers!
Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still are parrots. Just properly trained with a lot of data. Doesn’t make them not useful. But that’s what they are though.
I interpret the word 'parrot' to mean incapable of creative or original thought. Solving a major maths problem that has resisted the best mathematicians for so long seems to prove otherwise (even if it were just a matter of remixing old ideas, which is not the case here). What do they need to do for you to consider them non parrots, and do you consider a lot of humans as parrots?
> Solving a major maths problem that has resisted the best mathematicians for so long seems to prove otherwise (even if it were just a matter of remixing old ideas, which is not the case here).
I don't think we know enough about how they work to claim that. OpenAI said they had 10 THOUSANDS agents working on the problem, testing all ideas they found in the literature (including, it seems, the breakthrough of the guys who had it for the hypo viscose case).
Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8
#34> I had held a very different view of AI: that it was basically a stochastic parrot
imo it's been not like that for a few years now
(alternatively, stochastic parrots' abilities have been underestimated)
Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8
#35I don't know.
What's the tl;dr here?
"I'm one of the last few who needed convincing, now listen to my thoughts on what's next!"
Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8
#36I think the author is not aware of how much the Millennium Prize proof was actually driven by a human working for years towards that problem. The AI did not solve this on its own. A world class mathematician prompted it towards the proof. In my view, this is still a human achievement, not an AI achievement. If I design a bulldozer to push a five ton rock, did I push the rock or the bulldozer? If the AI really did get…
> If I design a bulldozer to push a five ton rock, did I push the rock or the bulldozer? Unequivocally the bulldozer. You get to take the blame in design of the bulldozer, though.
The law (which is supposed to codify the common sense and shared values underpinning a society—note "supposed to") disagrees with you: if I use a bulldozer to damage your property, you can sue me, not the bulldozer or its maker.
Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8
#37This, despite the ongoing social litigation of if this is even real? I believe AI is quite capable in the right circumstances, but I'm not convinced "this" is the watershed moment.
I think the watershed moment was when it was proven that it can solve highschoolers maths olympiad problems at competitive level. These problems require complexity of thinking that is beyond what most humans have to deal with in their entire lifetime. When AI took that in stride it was obvious that sky is the limit and entirety of current human achivement is a milestone but in a sense of the one that the car passes while doing 60.
Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8
#38I'm continually perplexed by people's perception that AI would be incapable of generating new ideas or discoveries, even years ago.
Deterministic machines do the same stuff again and again. Add entropy and they do new original stuff. Add a checker or verifier and you can filter for new stuff that is better. At the very least here, you now have evolution.
There is nothing that is particularly compelling about a system that can generate new stuff that is an improvement. What's compelling if anything is the verifier, but that isn't particularly any more mysterious than LLM output already. At least not nearly as mysterious as "Meat brains have a magical ability to manifest original ideas".
Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8
#39The problem isn't the mental model of AI--it's the mental model of intelligence. If you think intelligence is some non-algorithmic, non-computable process then of course you won't believe that an AI can be intelligent. But since Turing's time we've known that intelligence is just computation--it's not until recently that we've been able to come up with the specific algorithm. Think back to Kasparov playing Deep Blue.…
> What modern LLMs do is apply brute-force computation to any domain expressible in language--not just a restricted chess domain. That's the algorithm.
Which means that companies with sufficient computational resources and money will be capable of unlocking problems thousands of times faster and more effective than any individual even when lacking the skills, just by a matter of try and error.
Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I design a bulldozer to push a five ton rock, did I push the rock or the bulldozer? Unequivocally the bulldozer. You get to take the blame in design of the bulldozer, though.
The law (which is supposed to codify the common sense and shared values underpinning a society—note "supposed to") disagrees with you: if I use a bulldozer to damage your property, you can sue me, not the bulldozer or its maker.
Sure, legally.
But practically speaking, who did the heavy lifting? The operator or the machine?