Earlier quoted context omitted.
> my coworkers would know almost immediately if i did that. The same would happen if you were replaced by any random human.
that would be a silly test then
It sounds kind of like you made up a silly test then.
Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)
101–110 of 164 posts
Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)
#102"A.I."[1] like "technology"[2] is a term colloquially reserved for things that don't work yet. Once something works, we have to call it something else. 1. "Every time we figure out a piece of it, it stops being called AI; it becomes just computation." - Ray Kurzweil 2. "Technology n. - Something that doesn't work yet." - Douglas Adams
To be clear the root cause of this phenomenon is that the task was solved using methods that obviously have nothing to do with intelligence, so "AI" doesn't apply at all.
Computers will never be intelligent, and by the time we are done, neither will humans.
Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sure, just keep moving the goalposts. It's not a "real AI" because it can't take over the US military command and kick off WW3 and finish the survivors off with killer robots yet!
It can however select a girls school as a military target, and did.
Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bad and tired example as it confuses people just as much as it does (or rather, did?) LLMs.
It's one example that points out a major (possibly fundamental) flaw. I can point to prompt injection as another example. There are tons more if you're interested. Are you actually claiming LLMs operate based on human-like intelligence?
> Are you actually claiming LLMs operate based on human-like intelligence?
Ok, so we've established that it doesn't work like a human being. To paraphrase Dijkstra: The submarine doesn't swim.
But does it exactly sail either? An LLM doesn't exactly work like traditional deterministic software either, does it?
And yet it moves. You can put in data and ask it to process it, and you'll get an answer that's in some ballpark. Closer to quantum or stochastic computing perhaps, but that's not it either, is it? Or SAT-solving? Eh. It's its own computing approach. If you have a problem where the asking is hard but the verification is cheap, it might just be the right tool for the job.
Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're using the existence of flaws in LLMs to deny the claim of intelligence to them... That's not the point at all. It's the fact that they fail in ways completely unlike humans. You also have the burden of proof reversed. Its on you to prove these LLM agents are human-like intelligences if that's your claim. No one can prove this because it's false.
You are the one claiming that "they fail in ways completely unlike humans" insistently. Now go cough up some proof. I'll wait.
This isn't even controversial. The proof is available to anyone who uses these systems:
They hallucinate tool state, drift from the objective while seeming to comply, switch languages randomly (Cyrillic or Japanese characters in output), confuse tasks they've planned for completed ones, and of course follow prompt injections embedded in files or web pages.
Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry I don't follow what argument you're making?
They seem to be making a religious argument at this point. They don't like that the AI is a very poorly defined term and they are mad as hell about it to the point of irrational forum posting.
Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)
#107We'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…
The field has been called Artificial Intelligence for what, 60 plus years now. Why is it a problem now?
Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're using the existence of flaws in LLMs to deny the claim of intelligence to them... That's not the point at all. It's the fact that they fail in ways completely unlike humans. You also have the burden of proof reversed. Its on you to prove these LLM agents are human-like intelligences if that's your claim. No one can prove this because it's false.
You are the one claiming that "they fail in ways completely unlike humans" insistently. Now go cough up some proof. I'll wait.
If they didn't you wouldn't need the operator, you'd have replaced all your programmers with no drawbacks by now. As long as we keep hiring humans that is all the evidence you need that these AI fails in ways humans don't.
Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny enough, calculators went through this exact same thing when they came out. "If the calculator can do math for the students, will they still learn?"
We didn't have confused people claiming calculators were human-like intelligences doing math.
We did have that, people thought computers would overtake humans very soon when computers got better than humans at such things. It happens every single time computers do a new thing that previously humans were better at. Then 10 years later people see, oh that is just calculations, of course computers are better at that.
Re: Mythologizing AI makes it more likely that we’ll fail to operate it well (2023)
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It boggles my mind that this "b-b-but it's not actual real AI" whine is even a thing. As I understand it, a major reason it's a consistent chorus is because people don't want the "AI is here" talk to drown out (and thus slow the arrival or distribution of) speech/text/popular-understanding about actual strong AGI. To make an analogy, it could be like this: Some people were expecting 100 tulips (because they were to…
In my eyes that "chorus" is just insecurity talking. If it's not "actual real AI", we can keep pretending that human intelligence is something distinct and special - and that what our computers are doing now is some sort of other, obviously fake and vastly inferior thing. When Deep Blue won at chess, people didn't revise their estimates of AI capabilities upwards. They revised their estimates of how much intelligence…
> When Deep Blue won at chess, people didn't revise their estimates of AI capabilities upwards. They revised their estimates of how much intelligence is required to play chess at world level downwards, by a lot. Surely playing chess must have never required any intelligence in the first place!
You are wrong, many did temporarily revise their estimates of AI capabilities upwards, but then 10 years later they realized they were wrong and adjusted chess downward as you say.
We have seen that pattern over and over.