Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What happens when people don't understand how AI works

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 359 posts

Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works

#331

Post by rxtexit »

SnowflakeOnIce wrote: post #237
ufmace wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've tended to agree with this line of argument, but on the other hand... I expect that anybody you asked 10 years ago who was at least decently knowledgeable about tech and AI would have agreed that the Turing Test is a pretty decent way to determine if we have a "real" AI, that's actually "thinking" and is on the road to AGI etc. Well, the current generation of LLMs blow away that Turing Test. So, what now? Were we…

> Well, the current generation of LLMs blow away that Turing Test Maybe a weak version of Turing's test? Passing the stronger one (from Turing's paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence") involves an "average interrogator" being unable to distinguish between human and computer after 5 minutes of questioning more than 70% of the time. I've not seen this result published with today's LLMs.

It isn't a fair test at this point though because the stupidity of the average human would be too obvious.

Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works

#332

Post by butlike »

baq wrote: post #255
geraneum wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you get your questions answered prior to this?

Irrelevant

Not irrelevant. LLMs are just prosaic Google. if the pages of google were written in language as opposed to a list.

Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works

#333

Post by tempodox »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #295
tempodox wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like you did exactly what I described in my parent comment, so it doesn't add anything of substance. Let's agree to disagree.

The logic is that you preemptively shut down dissenting opinions so any comments with dissenting opinions are necessarily not adding anything of substance. They made good points and you simply don't want to discuss them; that does not mean the other commenter did not add substance and nuance to the discussion.

Nope. I understood the counterargument the first 513 times, there's no need to repeat it.

Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works

#334

Post by BlueTemplar »

anon-3988 wrote: post #65
krisoft wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some people stepped up to the Oracle and asked how to conquer Persia. Others probably asked where they left their sandals. And if the place would be any good at the second kind of queries you would call it Lost&Found and not the Oracle. > illusion (or a projection) of latent knowledge being revealed It is not an illusion. Knowledge is being revealed. The right knowledge for my question. > That interpretive dance be…

The difference is between saying '"I want a hammer" and it magically pops in your hand' versus '"I want a hammer" and I have to chop some wood, gather some metals, heat it up...'. Both gets you a hammer, but I don't think anyone would call the latter magical/divine? I think its only "magical" simply because its incomprehensible...how does a hammer pops into reality? Of course, once we know EXACTLY how that works, the…

This sounds like Clarke's fallacy ?

https://archdruidmirror.blogspot.com/2017/06/clarkes-fallacy...

Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works

#335

Post by BlueTemplar »

nosianu wrote: post #70
gaganyaan wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you asked a question into a black box, received a symbolic-seeming response, evaluated its truth post hoc, and interpreted its relevance So any and all human communication is divination in your book? I think your point is pretty silly. You're falling into a common trap of starting with the premise "I don't like AI", and then working backwards from that to pontification.

> So any and all human communication is divination in your book? Words from an AI are just words. Words in a human brain have more or less (depending on the individual's experiences) "stuff" attached to them: From direct sensory inputs to complex networks of experiences and though. Human thought is mainly not based on words. Language is an add-on. (People without language - never learned, or sometimes temporarily dis…

> Human thought is mainly not based on words. Language is an add-on.

What does 'mainly' mean here ?

Language is so very human-specific that human newborns already have the structures for it, while non-human newborns do not.

Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works

#336

Post by kenjackson »

tempodox wrote: post #333
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic is that you preemptively shut down dissenting opinions so any comments with dissenting opinions are necessarily not adding anything of substance. They made good points and you simply don't want to discuss them; that does not mean the other commenter did not add substance and nuance to the discussion.

Nope. I understood the counterargument the first 513 times, there's no need to repeat it.

Why bring up the argument then?

Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works

#337

Post by mlmonge »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #280
mlmonge wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even worse, IMHO... Are those who argue that LLMs an become sentient--I've seen this banter in other threads here on HN, in fact. As far as I understand it, sentience is a property organic to beings that can do more than just reason. These beings can contemplate on their existence, courageously seek & genuinely value relationship and worship their creator. And yes, I'm describing HUMANS. In spite of all the science f…

See, I think your view is just as baseless as the people calling modern LLMs sentient. If I was to take a human, and gradual replace parts of him and his brain with electronics that simulated the behavior of the removed parts, I'd struggle to call that person not sentient. After all, is a deaf person who is given hearing by a cochlear implant "less sentient"? And if we were to skip the flesh part, and jump straight t…

I respect your feedback, OkayPhysicist...

But I never claimed that a person with synthetic augmentations was any less human/sentient than those with all their natural parts. I likewise never claimed that "we have already achieved machine sentience."

And here's some food for thought... Regardless if one believes in God or not, is it really that offensive to claim that our humanity is unique in its sentience? I find it offensive when some claim that aliens built the Egyptian pyramids. (It sure provides great fodder for some wondrous science fiction, indeed.)

I will re-assert in other words, for the sake of clarity... That sentience is not an emergent property. That is the foundational definition upon which I contemplate the mystery (i.e. the reality of our being that science will never develop sufficiently to fully explain) of our existence. I for one, enjoy the endeavor of employing my sentience to explore & investigate our wondrous universe and to equally explore & relate with you and call you a friend in spite of our disagreement. Cheers!

Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works

#338

Post by the8472 »

zahlman wrote: post #300
the8472 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://x.com/chargoddard/status/1931652388399784325

This kind of mockery is unproductive and doesn't constitute an actual argument against the position it describes.

Sadly there are plenty of arguments that boil down to "AI can't be reasoning because they don't do everything humans do", including things such as being embodied, "having consciousness" or some postulated quantum effects in the brain making humans special[0].

Drawing a line around the bag of things that humans do and calling that reasoning isn't all that conductive to discussion either because it's a rather large bag, some parts are idiosyncratic and others aren't well-defined.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reducti...

Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works

#339

Post by mlmonge »

the_af wrote: post #278
mlmonge wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even worse, IMHO... Are those who argue that LLMs an become sentient--I've seen this banter in other threads here on HN, in fact. As far as I understand it, sentience is a property organic to beings that can do more than just reason. These beings can contemplate on their existence, courageously seek & genuinely value relationship and worship their creator. And yes, I'm describing HUMANS. In spite of all the science f…

I don't believe LLMs have become sentient, nor can it "contemplate on its existence". That said, I find some of your claims less compelling. I'm an atheist, so there's no "creator" for humans to be worshipped. But also, human intelligence/sentience came from non-intelligence/non-sentience, right? So something appeared where before it didn't exist (gradually, and with whatever convoluted and random accidents, but it d…

You say that "I don't believe LLMs have become sentient" nor contemplate. But what is the basis for your belief in this? I would think than an atheist would be more likely to have opposite beliefs.

I also concede that a "form" of intelligence/sentience could emerge. Presently the form is called "artificial," I'd say.

And you're right... not all scifi argues machine evolves to humanity. I meant to refer to that body of scifi that does. And the body that explores the "what make us human," indeed that's the good stuff. Alex Garland's Ex Machina comes to mind. I absolutely loved that film. The ending was chilling!

Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works

#340

Post by the_af »

mlmonge wrote: post #339
the_af wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe LLMs have become sentient, nor can it "contemplate on its existence". That said, I find some of your claims less compelling. I'm an atheist, so there's no "creator" for humans to be worshipped. But also, human intelligence/sentience came from non-intelligence/non-sentience, right? So something appeared where before it didn't exist (gradually, and with whatever convoluted and random accidents, but it d…

You say that "I don't believe LLMs have become sentient" nor contemplate. But what is the basis for your belief in this? I would think than an atheist would be more likely to have opposite beliefs. I also concede that a "form" of intelligence/sentience could emerge. Presently the form is called "artificial," I'd say. And you're right... not all scifi argues machine evolves to humanity. I meant to refer to that body o…

Thanks for the respectful reply. We agree on scifi!

As for atheism: it's merely the lack of belief that god exists (or in some definitions, the active belief that it doesn't exist). Nothing else, nothing more. Individual atheists may believe some other things, or not.

I believe some kind of intelligence could arise again, much like ours arose "out of nonintelligence". I just don't think this is it -- LLMs are very impressive but they are likely a dead end, and regardless, I don't think they are conscious by any meaningful definition of the word. It's mostly hype and gullible people at this point.

Post reply on HN