101–110 of 110 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My parrot doesn't have a take, but it sure can repeat one it heard on Reddit.
So, you're saying that it was somebody on Reddit who disproved the conjecture, and not a "stochastic parrot?"
Edit: And not a great example to use to prove human-ness considering humans didn't disprove the conjecture?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's very clearly what they're referring to also, or at least I certainly doubt this would be lost on them, or most anyone here, at this point.
I imagine that it should be clear to everyone here now, until I read threads like this comparing child development to the advances in LLM building. It’s like saying that a new M-Apple chip developed like a child. There is a clear tendency to give human like attributes to LLMs, probably caused by the terms used in ML: training, learning, etc.
For me, it was the same genre of comment as e.g. comments that call out how vision models tend to be structured surprisingly similarly to how the visual cortex is structured, even without specifically attempting to make that happen, and within the boundaries of our understanding of either things of course.
So not so much anthropomorphization, and more a recognition of the unintentional, and surprising, biomimicry.
Though to be honest, I'll be damned if any of the pictures in the post look anything like any child drawing I've ever seen, Grok's or any of the other models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, you're saying that it was somebody on Reddit who disproved the conjecture, and not a "stochastic parrot?"
You asked for my parrot's take, not how to disprove a conjecture. Edit: And not a great example to use to prove human-ness considering humans didn't disprove the conjecture?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I saw something I thought resembled a joke I wouldn't have made the comment.
ESL? Allow me to explain the theory behind the humor... Grok's art had heavy use of what strongly resembles a permanent marker with lateral-ish scribbles similar to what one might see when someone is trying to mark something as discarded. Documents, especially those procured by the US government when responding to FOIA requests, contain many 'strike-through' style black marks resembling bold permanent-marker lines, w…
Hence, I can't be bothered to read any of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You asked for my parrot's take, not how to disprove a conjecture. Edit: And not a great example to use to prove human-ness considering humans didn't disprove the conjecture?
Parrot analogies for frontier AI are so stupid that they prove human-ness by dint of being a mistake no thinking entity would make.
Why do some people get very defensive when you suggest AI isn’t comparable to humans?
Like, where is it coming from?
Why do people seem to want to ascribe human traits on the tech? It’s just technology. Why do we need to draw parallels to biology? Is it actually helpful? My position is “no” because the parallels only seem similar, but fundamentally aren’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's very clearly what they're referring to also, or at least I certainly doubt this would be lost on them, or most anyone here, at this point.
I imagine that it should be clear to everyone here now, until I read threads like this comparing child development to the advances in LLM building. It’s like saying that a new M-Apple chip developed like a child. There is a clear tendency to give human like attributes to LLMs, probably caused by the terms used in ML: training, learning, etc.
The parent wasn't referring to individual LLMs developing, but that overall new SOTA LLMs models are increasing in capabilities in ways similar to how human children do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ESL? Allow me to explain the theory behind the humor... Grok's art had heavy use of what strongly resembles a permanent marker with lateral-ish scribbles similar to what one might see when someone is trying to mark something as discarded. Documents, especially those procured by the US government when responding to FOIA requests, contain many 'strike-through' style black marks resembling bold permanent-marker lines, w…
It doesn't get any more funny when you try to explain something that wasn't funny in the first place. Hence, I can't be bothered to read any of this.
Look at the sequence: You inquired. I answered. Not finding something funny is not really a good reason to fake a question you never intended to really have answered. You are kind of admitting that you knew it was humor but decided to approach it deceptively, or manipulatively, as if I am the only one ever to make a joke that wasn't universally appreciated.
I think that makes you a prick, with a lot of karma-tokens to play with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parrot analogies for frontier AI are so stupid that they prove human-ness by dint of being a mistake no thinking entity would make.
Perhaps you can answer this for me. Why do some people get very defensive when you suggest AI isn’t comparable to humans? Like, where is it coming from? Why do people seem to want to ascribe human traits on the tech? It’s just technology. Why do we need to draw parallels to biology? Is it actually helpful? My position is “no” because the parallels only seem similar, but fundamentally aren’t.
But you didn't do that, did you? You rattled off a goofy cliché about parrots that we've all heard a hundred times before. If that's all you have to contribute to the conversation, go contribute it somewhere else.