11–20 of 20 posts
It’s just another anti AI rant this time focused on the fixable problem of AI tending towards the average. This will get sorted out in time and in the meantime, instruct the LLM away from averaged answers. It’s not a problem. If you do not want images that have that instantly recognizable AI style to them - busy, perfect, bright colors pseudo realistic, outside what humans would usually make - then instruct the AI th…
It’s just another anti AI rant this time focused on the fixable problem of AI tending towards the average. This will get sorted out in time and in the meantime, instruct the LLM away from averaged answers. It’s not a problem. If you do not want images that have that instantly recognizable AI style to them - busy, perfect, bright colors pseudo realistic, outside what humans would usually make - then instruct the AI th…
How do you see it getting sorted out over time?
You can do it today just by prodding the LLM correctly so it’s not hard for the LLM devs to do in an organized way.
The future of AI/LLMs will include the development of distinct personalities and behavior characteristics instead of the generic interface to an AI brain that is an averaged monotone.
About half the people I discuss this with seem to think LLMs are great and don't see any problems with their output. The other half seem to get nothing but an endless stream of plausibly shaped rubbish. It doesn't seem to depend on what model they use or how they prompt it. In code, there seems to be a loose correlation with testing styles; I've previously noticed that some people write tests to show that the code wo…
Does it seem like it bifurcates based on the person? I've had both experiences myself, sometimes with the same model and within ~days of each other on seemingly similar tasks. It's almost impossible to deny sometimes that actual intelligence is being expressed (and could not be regurgitated intelligence from some random internet page), but then I see firsthand the eye-rolling "intelligence-shaped" output from somethi…
But how is it impossible? Or rather, how is it possible to distinguish actual intelligence from some internet page--not "some random internet page", but some very well selected, timely and topical internet page?
Carly Simon's "Killing Me Softly" describes a similar experience, decades before LLMs. It's amazingly easy to feel like someone is understanding you when they are just pattern matching on a common shared experience.
This seems so likely that I have a hard time understanding why some people think it's impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it seem like it bifurcates based on the person? I've had both experiences myself, sometimes with the same model and within ~days of each other on seemingly similar tasks. It's almost impossible to deny sometimes that actual intelligence is being expressed (and could not be regurgitated intelligence from some random internet page), but then I see firsthand the eye-rolling "intelligence-shaped" output from somethi…
> It's almost impossible to deny sometimes that actual intelligence is being expressed (and could not be regurgitated intelligence from some random internet page) But how is it impossible? Or rather, how is it possible to distinguish actual intelligence from some internet page--not "some random internet page", but some very well selected, timely and topical internet page? Carly Simon's "Killing Me Softly" describes a…
FWIW this is my own mental gymnastics around the Chinese Room; at some point the question "where is the understanding?" is moot, because if the Chinese Room reliably delivers context-specific correct results in unique contexts, then what more do we require of intelligence? I have to admit that sometimes it does better than I can do, and I've been called intelligent by intelligent people my whole life.
(BTW Killing Me Softly wasn't written/sung/anything by Carly Simon, but composed by Charles Fox with lyrics by Norman Gimbel, in collaboration with Lori Lieberman [after she was inspired by a Don McLean performance in late 1971].)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's almost impossible to deny sometimes that actual intelligence is being expressed (and could not be regurgitated intelligence from some random internet page) But how is it impossible? Or rather, how is it possible to distinguish actual intelligence from some internet page--not "some random internet page", but some very well selected, timely and topical internet page? Carly Simon's "Killing Me Softly" describes a…
I know; if I hadn't experienced it myself, I would have a hard time believing it. Even if we grant that it's "merely" as you say, that it can interpret my loose and often false or misleading rhetoric to identify my question, trawl through thousands of lines of code to determine the core problem, select some very specific and relevant internet page, and then translate its solution fresh into my own problem domain; tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's almost impossible to deny sometimes that actual intelligence is being expressed (and could not be regurgitated intelligence from some random internet page) But how is it impossible? Or rather, how is it possible to distinguish actual intelligence from some internet page--not "some random internet page", but some very well selected, timely and topical internet page? Carly Simon's "Killing Me Softly" describes a…
I know; if I hadn't experienced it myself, I would have a hard time believing it. Even if we grant that it's "merely" as you say, that it can interpret my loose and often false or misleading rhetoric to identify my question, trawl through thousands of lines of code to determine the core problem, select some very specific and relevant internet page, and then translate its solution fresh into my own problem domain; tha…
First, I'm not sure I grant the premise (esp. "reliably"), but even so the answer seems glaringly obvious: we require intelligence to extend the range of what is known so that it can be looked up / delivered by systems like libraries, search engines, and LLMs. The conflation of knowledge indexing and knowledge creation (and, more specifically, that some people don't seem to be able to distinguish them) may be the core of the issue.
> BTW Killing Me Softly wasn't written/sung/anything by Carly Simon
Yeah, I probably hallucinate that. :P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know; if I hadn't experienced it myself, I would have a hard time believing it. Even if we grant that it's "merely" as you say, that it can interpret my loose and often false or misleading rhetoric to identify my question, trawl through thousands of lines of code to determine the core problem, select some very specific and relevant internet page, and then translate its solution fresh into my own problem domain; tha…
> if the Chinese Room reliably delivers context-specific correct results in unique contexts, then what more do we require of intelligence? First, I'm not sure I grant the premise (esp. "reliably"), but even so the answer seems glaringly obvious: we require intelligence to extend the range of what is known so that it can be looked up / delivered by systems like libraries, search engines, and LLMs. The conflation of kn…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if the Chinese Room reliably delivers context-specific correct results in unique contexts, then what more do we require of intelligence? First, I'm not sure I grant the premise (esp. "reliably"), but even so the answer seems glaringly obvious: we require intelligence to extend the range of what is known so that it can be looked up / delivered by systems like libraries, search engines, and LLMs. The conflation of kn…
I agree that there is some 'higher' intelligence that is about knowledge creation; say, mathematical inventions like RSA, or new philosophy, or coming up with interesting mathematical problems. But I only asked what is 'required' of intelligence, and we should admit that the vast majority of people, even among those who have above-average intelligence, do not create new knowledge of the grand sort. Most people acquir…
But it only appears to work as long as things stay within the expected statistical distribution. If I'm driving my usual route to work, waiting to turn left, and the three cars in front of me each start their turn, glow pink, and turn into circus animals with their occupants perched precariously on top I'm going to have a very different reaction than any self driving car or LLM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that there is some 'higher' intelligence that is about knowledge creation; say, mathematical inventions like RSA, or new philosophy, or coming up with interesting mathematical problems. But I only asked what is 'required' of intelligence, and we should admit that the vast majority of people, even among those who have above-average intelligence, do not create new knowledge of the grand sort. Most people acquir…
Most people don't create knowledge "of the grand sort" but that's moving the goal posts; they do create knowledge "of the mundane sort" constantly. LLMs with a suitable harness can simulate this (poorly) by parroting what humans do when they are flustered (mumbling to themselves things like "What was I going to the store for? I made a list. Where did I put the list? Ah, here it is. Now where did I leave my keys?") an…