Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There will never be, and can never be, "artificial intelligence". And machines can't learn.
Can machines fly by themselves?
No
Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI
151–160 of 202 posts
Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m still waiting for SalesForce to integrate an LLM into Slack so I can ask it business logic and decisions long lost. Still waiting for Microsoft to integrate an LLM into outlook so I can get a summary of a 20 email long chain I just got CCed into. I don’t think the iPod comparison is a valid one. People only have so much time to listen to music. Past a certain point, no one has enough good music they like to put i…
Haha, I'd be happy if outlook just integrated a search that actually works. Most of outlook search results aren't even relevant, and it regularly misses things I know are there. Literally the most useless search I've ever had to use.
Irony: they did. They bought LookOut, which was a simple and extremely good search plugin for desktop Outlook. And then, somehow, it was melted down into the rather weak beer search that 365 has today.
There is an alternative, Lookeen, which positions itself as LookOut's successor, but I've yet to try it.
https://lookeen.com/solutions/outlook-search/lookout-alterna...
Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI
#153The iPod didn't stop growing. It turned into an iPhone - a much more complex system which happened to include iPod features, almost as a trivial add-on. If you consider LLMs as the iPod of ML, what would the iPhone equivalent be?
Probably the kind of intuitive AI assistant you can find in a lot of science fiction works. A virtual assistant that can search the web for you, write/proofread an essay, analyse social situations, and enrich the right bits of your personal information for you. Basically a smart assistant integrated into a vr headset.
Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI
#154I feel like "generative" might be the worst possible label, because while the generative capabilities are the most exciting features, they're not the most useful, and in most cases they aren't useful at all. But the sentiment analysis, summaries, and object detection seem incredibly capable and like the actual useful features of LLMs and similar tensor models.
"Generative" is a great technical term for LLMs because it is what they do. But it a bad marketing term because it doesn't describe what they can do well.
>object detection
This comes from a different class of machine learning models unless I am mistaken?
Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's talking about control theory, and other kinds of optimisation systems too. I think AI is a fine blanket term for all of that stuff.
There will never be, and can never be, "artificial intelligence". (The creation of consciousness is impossible.) It's a fun/interesting device in science fiction , just like the concept of golems (animated beings) are in folk tales. But it's complete nonsense to talk about it as a possibility in the real world so yes, the label of 'machine learning' is a far, far better label to use for this powerful and interesting…
This is a category error, and basically a non-sequitur to the discussion. Whether or not LLMs are conscious is not the topic of discussion (and not a position I've seen anyone seriously advocate).
Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI
#156To me, this reads like a very reasonable take. He suggests to limit the scope of the AI problem, add manual overrides in case there are unexpected situations, and he (rightly, in my opinion) predicts that the business case for exponentially scaling LLM models isn't there. With that context, I like his iPod example. Apple probably could have made a 3TB iPod to stick to Moore's law for another few years, but after they…
I’m still waiting for SalesForce to integrate an LLM into Slack so I can ask it business logic and decisions long lost. Still waiting for Microsoft to integrate an LLM into outlook so I can get a summary of a 20 email long chain I just got CCed into. I don’t think the iPod comparison is a valid one. People only have so much time to listen to music. Past a certain point, no one has enough good music they like to put i…
Outlook already does summarization with CoPilot. I use it everyday. I think summarization is one of the strengths of LLMs and it really shines here:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/summarize-an-emai...
Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI
#157ChatGPT and other world-knowledge AIs are proven super intelligences in that they have a broader range of knowledge than any human who has ever lived and they are faster than any human who has ever lived.
Anyone who can not acknowledge this lacks the discernment to understand that when they ask a computer program a question and get an answer no human could have given, that is super intelligence.
Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have no conception of mathematics, do you think you'd get better at solving mathematics problems based on looking at more examples of people who may or may not be solving them correctly?
It has worked for humanity...
Only after humanity became a general intelligence. The previous ancestors were also pretty smart, but not smart enough to develop technology on their own, you have to be extremely smart to do what humanity did.
Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI
#159That makes sense from Brooks' perspective. He's done his best work when he didn't try to overreach. The six-legged insect thing was great, but very dumb. Cog was supposed to reach human-level AI and was an embarrassing dud. The Roomba was simple, dumb, and useful. The military iRobot machines were good little remote-controlled tanks. The Rethink Robotics machines were supposed to be intelligent and learn manipulation…
The Roomba always felt like these coding exercises of a ball bouncing off the screen limits:
IF X > 600 || X 600 || Y Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI
#160> Brooks explains that this could eventually lead to robots with useful language interfaces for people in care situations. I've been thinking, in Star Trek terms, what if it's not Lt. Cdr. Data, but just the Ship's Computer?
I like Data, but I never understood the concept. What does he really ad above the ships computer? Why have the ship computer walk around (I know feelings and stuff).
In Ian Banks universe AIs also have avatars, but for the sole benefit of humans, they like to interact with avatars more than with a voice in their head.