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

31–40 of 164 posts

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

#31

Post by entrepy123 »

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?

> 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 told tulips are available and can be ordered), and they ordered them. They received 100 daisies. And were saying "OMG, THE TULIPS ARE HERE! THE TULIPS ARE HERE!"

A nearby observer might have said, "You know, those are daisies. Not tulips."

And 95% of people might have said back, "WE GOT 100 TULIPS! SAYS SO RIGHT HERE! THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL! STOP BEING A NAY-SAYER! THESE ARE BEAUTIFUL TULIPS!"

The 5% could just to think to themselves, and could get chastised by the crowd, if they were to say say it out loud: "Well, those are not nearly as beautiful as tulips. And if you don't take it up with the seller, you may never receive the real tulips you were after. Since you think or at least act as though you've been sold them already."

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

#32

Post by contagiousflow »

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?

strawberry

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

#33

Post by CamperBob2 »

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'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.

They fucking solve original math problems that you can't solve. They are indisputably intelligent, and they are indisputably artificial. That makes them indisputably "artificial intelligence." Denying that (or downvoting it, for that matter) is up there with denying evolution and the Moon landings.

It's time to start flying a different flag. You're making humans look stupid.

It turned out to be possible with fairly basic statistical text generation, because fooling humans is easy.

Yes, fooling humans is easy. Yet somehow we still consider ourselves qualified to say what is "intelligent" and what isn't, even though we can't seem to define the term.

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

#34

Post by continuational »

jacobgold wrote: post #15
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?

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…

If an alien lands on Earth and learns English, would you deem it non-intelligent if you can tell it apart from a human in conversation?

I think we should consider slime mold intelligent, and realise that it's a spectrum. Path finding is AI. There are probably forms of intelligence we have yet to discover.

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

#35

Post by ilaksh »

AI that we have now is not a digital animal in capability or kind, and is not currently anywhere close to taking over.

But it's still in its present form very intelligent in meaningful and useful ways. And it is not too soon to talk about concerns of a potential existential threat in the future. Because it could sooner than we might realize, threaten our existence.

Because of the potential, we should have a culture of caution as we continue to rapidly improve AI.

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

#36

Post by TeMPOraL »

jacobgold wrote: post #18
ACCount37 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a bad and tired example as it confuses people just as much as it does (or rather, did?) LLMs.

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

#37

Post by bilekas »

ilaksh wrote: post #35

AI that we have now is not a digital animal in capability or kind, and is not currently anywhere close to taking over. But it's still in its present form very intelligent in meaningful and useful ways. And it is not too soon to talk about concerns of a potential existential threat in the future. Because it could sooner than we might realize, threaten our existence. Because of the potential, we should have a culture o…

It will only become an existential threat (in my humble opinion) when they can run influenced inference locally offline almost instantaneously. Then we need to be concerned about not being able to switch it off.

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

#38

Post by _doctor_love »

ACCount37 wrote: post #30
jacobgold wrote: post #18

Earlier 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!

That's how it works though. The moment we have "AI" and see something working, it immediately ceases to be magic because "it's just a program after all." Aligning on a true definition of Artificial Intelligence is a very vexing problem.

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

#39

Post by _doctor_love »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #33
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'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. They fucking solve original math problems that you can't solve. They are indisputably intelligent, and they are indisputably artificial. That makes them indisputably "artificial intelligence." Denying that (or downvoting it, for that matter) is up there with d…

[flagged]

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

#40

Post by CamperBob2 »

jacobgold wrote: post #18
ACCount37 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But when you call something "AI" and it tells you to walk instead of drive to the car wash

There are so many other sites. So many others. Why are you here?

Post reply on HN