Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh. People have been calling much dumber algorithms "AI" for decades. You guys are just pedants.
By the way, don’t call it “AI.” That catchall phrase, which used to cover everything from expert systems and neural networks to robotics and vision systems, is now passe in some circles. The preferred terms now are “knowledge-based systems” and “intelligent systems”, claimed Computerworld magazine in 1991. https://archive.org/details/computerworld2530unse/page/59/mo...
AI might yet follow the path of previous technological revolutions
211–220 of 309 posts
Re: AI might yet follow the path of previous technological revolutions
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
By the way, don’t call it “AI.” That catchall phrase, which used to cover everything from expert systems and neural networks to robotics and vision systems, is now passe in some circles. The preferred terms now are “knowledge-based systems” and “intelligent systems”, claimed Computerworld magazine in 1991. https://archive.org/details/computerworld2530unse/page/59/mo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
Uh-huh. If you call it artificial intelligence people quibble, as they should.
Re: AI might yet follow the path of previous technological revolutions
#213I think LLMs are absolutely fantastic tools. But I think we keep getting stuck on calling them AI. LLMs are not sentient. We can make great strides if we treat them as the next generation of helpers for all intellectual and creative arts.
Intelligence doesn't imply sentience, does it? Is there an issue in calling a non-sentient system intelligent?
It depends on how intelligence is defined. In the traditional AI sense it is usually "doing things that, when done by people, would be thought of as requiring intelligence". So you get things like planning, forecasting, interpreting texts falling into "AI" even though you might be using a combinatorial solver for one, curve fitting for the other and training a language model for the third. People say that this muddies the definition of AI, but it doesn't really need to be the case.
Sentience as in having some form of self-awareness, identity, personal goals, rankings of future outcomes and current states, a sense that things have "meaning" isn't part of the definition. Some argue that this lack of experience about what something feels like (I think this might be termed "qualia" but I'm not sure) is why artificial intelligence shouldn't be considered intelligence at all.
Re: AI might yet follow the path of previous technological revolutions
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
Uh-huh. If you call it artificial intelligence people quibble, as they should.
I disagree entirely. I think that this "quibble" is just cope.
People don't want machines to infringe on their precious "intelligence". So for any notable AI advance, they rush to come up with a reason why it's "not ackhtually intelligent".
Even if those machines obviously do the kind of tasks that were entirely exclusive to humans just a few years ago. Or were in the realm of "machines would never be able to do this" a few years ago.
Re: AI might yet follow the path of previous technological revolutions
#215> Adoption is also hampered by the fact that much knowledge is tacit and organisation-specific, data may not be in the right format and its use may be constrained by regulation.
The article mentions three times regulations as a problem. It never says what such regulations are. Is it the GDPR and the protection of people's data? Is it anti-discrimination regulations that AI bias break regularly? We do not know because the article does not say. Probably because they are knowledgeable enough to avoid publicly attacking citizens rights. But they lack the moral integrity to remove the anti-regulatory argument.
Re: AI might yet follow the path of previous technological revolutions
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh-huh. If you call it artificial intelligence people quibble, as they should.
I disagree entirely. I think that this "quibble" is just cope. People don't want machines to infringe on their precious "intelligence". So for any notable AI advance, they rush to come up with a reason why it's "not ackhtually intelligent". Even if those machines obviously do the kind of tasks that were entirely exclusive to humans just a few years ago. Or were in the realm of "machines would never be able to do this…
I for one am a counter-example. I'd be delighted by the discovery of actual artificial intelligence, which is obviously possible in principle.
Re: AI might yet follow the path of previous technological revolutions
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree entirely. I think that this "quibble" is just cope. People don't want machines to infringe on their precious "intelligence". So for any notable AI advance, they rush to come up with a reason why it's "not ackhtually intelligent". Even if those machines obviously do the kind of tasks that were entirely exclusive to humans just a few years ago. Or were in the realm of "machines would never be able to do this…
I for one am a counter-example. I'd be delighted by the discovery of actual artificial intelligence, which is obviously possible in principle.
And what would that "actual artificial intelligence" be, pray tell me? What is this magical, impossible-to-capture thing that disqualifies LLMs?
Re: AI might yet follow the path of previous technological revolutions
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
I for one am a counter-example. I'd be delighted by the discovery of actual artificial intelligence, which is obviously possible in principle.
And what would that "actual artificial intelligence" be, pray tell me? What is this magical, impossible-to-capture thing that disqualifies LLMs?
Well, fuck knows. However, that doesn't automatically make this a "no true Scotsman" argument. Sometimes we just don't know an answer.
Here's a question for you, actually: what's the criterion for being non-intelligent?
Re: AI might yet follow the path of previous technological revolutions
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am just trying to make the point that the machines that we make tend to end up rather different to their natural analogues. The effective ones anyway. Ornithopters were not successful. And I suspect that articifial intelligences will end up very different to human intelligence.
Okay... but an airplane in essence is modelling the shape of a bird. Where do you think the inspiration for the shape of a plane came from? lmao. come on. Humans are not all that original, we take what exists in nature and mangle it in some way to produce a thing. The same thing will eventually happen with AI - not in our lifetime though.
Ornithopters model the shape of a bird and movement of a bird. Modern aircraft don't. What bird does a Boeing 767 look like?
Re: AI might yet follow the path of previous technological revolutions
#220I think LLMs are absolutely fantastic tools. But I think we keep getting stuck on calling them AI. LLMs are not sentient. We can make great strides if we treat them as the next generation of helpers for all intellectual and creative arts.
Intelligence doesn't imply sentience, does it? Is there an issue in calling a non-sentient system intelligent?
Shifting goalposts of AI aside, intelligence as a general faculty does not require sentience, consciousness, awareness, qualia, valence or any of the things traditionally associated with a high level of biological intelligence.
But what it does require: the ability to produce useful output beyond the sum total of past experience and present (sensory) input. An LLM does only this. Where as a human-like intelligence has some form on internal randomness, plus an internal world model against which such randomized output could get validated.