Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 164 posts

Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)

#11

Post by jacobgold »

We're choosing to call LLMs (and the little "harness" programs that query them in loops and execute their output) "AI", even though it doesn't make much sense.

I absolutely love this technology but these aren't autonomous intelligences. They're little programs executing Bash scripts from JSON output.

Our ideas about AI were naive. We thought passing a basic Turing test would require human-like intelligence. It turned out to be possible with fairly basic statistical text generation, because fooling humans is easy.

It would've been nice to reserve "AI" for superior human-like intelligence capable of genuine common sense and reasoning. The irony is that the startup founders most worried about "AI" have created so much hype and funding that we may very well figure out how to build "real" AI.

Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)

#12

Post by davidpapermill »

jacobgold wrote: post #11

We're choosing to call LLMs (and the little "harness" programs that query them in loops and execute their output) "AI", even though it doesn't make much sense. I absolutely love this technology but these aren't autonomous intelligences. They're little programs executing Bash scripts from JSON output. Our ideas about AI were naive. We thought passing a basic Turing test would require human-like intelligence. It turned…

> It would've been nice to reserve "AI" for superior human-like intelligence capable of genuine common sense and reasoning.

What would a frontier API have to be able to do to satisfy you?

Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)

#13

Post by ACCount37 »

jacobgold wrote: post #11

We're choosing to call LLMs (and the little "harness" programs that query them in loops and execute their output) "AI", even though it doesn't make much sense. I absolutely love this technology but these aren't autonomous intelligences. They're little programs executing Bash scripts from JSON output. Our ideas about AI were naive. We thought passing a basic Turing test would require human-like intelligence. It turned…

We've chosen to call Deep Blue and Half-Life 1 NPCs "AI" too.

It boggles my mind that this "b-b-but it's not actual real AI" whine is even a thing. Were people saying this living in the cave for the past 5 decades of AI research?

Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)

#14

Post by Hilliard_Ohiooo »

davidpapermill wrote: post #12
jacobgold wrote: post #11

We're choosing to call LLMs (and the little "harness" programs that query them in loops and execute their output) "AI", even though it doesn't make much sense. I absolutely love this technology but these aren't autonomous intelligences. They're little programs executing Bash scripts from JSON output. Our ideas about AI were naive. We thought passing a basic Turing test would require human-like intelligence. It turned…

> It would've been nice to reserve "AI" for superior human-like intelligence capable of genuine common sense and reasoning. What would a frontier API have to be able to do to satisfy you?

To answer for OP:

We are now calling text and image generators "intelligent" in the same way a spell checker is intelligent.

Whatever it's become, "AI" research started as a way to study digital neurology, or how to digitize a mind, not just how to generate data.

The Turing Test should have had a caveat, it needs to fool a, "non-stupid" person, and we still have not gotten even close to passing that version.

Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)

#15

Post by jacobgold »

davidpapermill wrote: post #12
jacobgold wrote: post #11

We're choosing to call LLMs (and the little "harness" programs that query them in loops and execute their output) "AI", even though it doesn't make much sense. I absolutely love this technology but these aren't autonomous intelligences. They're little programs executing Bash scripts from JSON output. Our ideas about AI were naive. We thought passing a basic Turing test would require human-like intelligence. It turned…

> It would've been nice to reserve "AI" for superior human-like intelligence capable of genuine common sense and reasoning. What would a frontier API have to be able to do to satisfy you?

Maybe just a very rigorous version of the Turing test? Modern LLMs can superficially simulate conversation but it's trivial to force them into revealing their non-human like intelligence.

They've been "patched" since but all models fail basic tests like "Should I walk or drive to the car wash which is 100 feet away" by recommending you walk.

So you'd just ask questions that require theory of mind, abstract and common sense reasoning, causal inference, learning novel rules, transferring knowledge novel situations, recognizing ambiguity, etc.

Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)

#16

Post by Diogenesian »

bena wrote: post #8

I think the biggest pushback this article will get here is the date. Although all he's saying is basically, "It's a tool, not a silver bullet". But the article is 3 years old and people will note that the models have been updated since then.

The models have updated but the biggest change is providers leaning in to them being "stochastic parrots," aka probabilistic computing, and if p(good response) > 0.5 then running the algorithm over and over again improves accuracy.

Of course it's gussied up as "mixture of agents" "reasoning traces" "agentic dispatching" but high-level it's Randomized Algorithms 101.

Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)

#17

Post by radial_symmetry »

Hilliard_Ohiooo wrote: post #14
davidpapermill wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would've been nice to reserve "AI" for superior human-like intelligence capable of genuine common sense and reasoning. What would a frontier API have to be able to do to satisfy you?

To answer for OP: We are now calling text and image generators "intelligent" in the same way a spell checker is intelligent. Whatever it's become, "AI" research started as a way to study digital neurology, or how to digitize a mind, not just how to generate data. The Turing Test should have had a caveat, it needs to fool a, "non-stupid" person, and we still have not gotten even close to passing that version.

What exactly would a 'non-stupid' person do to catch the latest models on a Turing Test? Aside from being aware of AI 'tells' like em-dashes.

Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)

#18

Post by jacobgold »

ACCount37 wrote: post #13
jacobgold wrote: post #11

We're choosing to call LLMs (and the little "harness" programs that query them in loops and execute their output) "AI", even though it doesn't make much sense. I absolutely love this technology but these aren't autonomous intelligences. They're little programs executing Bash scripts from JSON output. Our ideas about AI were naive. We thought passing a basic Turing test would require human-like intelligence. It turned…

We've chosen to call Deep Blue and Half-Life 1 NPCs "AI" too. It boggles my mind that this "b-b-but it's not actual real AI" whine is even a thing. Were people saying this living in the cave for the past 5 decades of AI research?

You can call your little doggy "AI" if it makes you happy.

But when you call something "AI" and it tells you to walk instead of drive to the car wash, you're not talking about the "AI" science fiction authors were dreaming of.

Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)

#19

Post by CharlesW »

jacobgold wrote: post #11

We're choosing to call LLMs (and the little "harness" programs that query them in loops and execute their output) "AI", even though it doesn't make much sense. I absolutely love this technology but these aren't autonomous intelligences. They're little programs executing Bash scripts from JSON output. Our ideas about AI were naive. We thought passing a basic Turing test would require human-like intelligence. It turned…

> It would've been nice to reserve "AI" for superior human-like intelligence capable of genuine common sense and reasoning.

We've called that "AGI" since the late 90s/early 00s (depending on whether you count first use or popularization). Even if AGI does come to pass, we'll still need "AI" since not all forms of AI will be AGI.

Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)

#20

Post by joe_the_user »

jacobgold wrote: post #11

We're choosing to call LLMs (and the little "harness" programs that query them in loops and execute their output) "AI", even though it doesn't make much sense. I absolutely love this technology but these aren't autonomous intelligences. They're little programs executing Bash scripts from JSON output. Our ideas about AI were naive. We thought passing a basic Turing test would require human-like intelligence. It turned…

I don't think you can say the Turing test has been passed in a computer versus determined humans setting. IE humans making a strategy effort to sort humans versus computers as well as humans motivated to distinguish themselves as humans, IE, people quiz the person or machine about "common sense, reasoning, etc." and people make an effort to exhibit that reasoning. I'd concede that creating such a competition would be challenging.

I find references to LLMs fooling humans in "casual conversations" [1] but that's not how I think the original Turing test was conceived - or at least that's not all versions that existed.

At the same time, before even LLMs appeared, the exact meaning of the test was under intense debate. The "Loebner Prize" [2] being awarded to fairly simple chatbots made serious computer scientists very embarrassed.

[1] https://neurosciencenews.com/ai-passes-turing-test-30733/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loebner_Prize

Post reply on HN