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

There is no A.I.

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 523 posts

Re: There is no A.I.

#411

Post by sclarisse »

coldtea wrote: post #334
sclarisse wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is seldom more-convenient to represent your property as a thing that has rights. But if we did decide to speak as if it had rights, it would have its owners rights. It would have the right not to be searched by the government, without due process of law, for instance. (This is your right not to be searched.) It would have the right not to have some components or clothes therein seized by the government, without ju…

> A corporation has the right to put out whatever message it likes, because its owners have that right. This is often threatened. I think it would be that bad if a corporation didn't have some of those rights. For example, one difference between a corporation and a person, is that a corporation is for profit. A corporation is also potentially much more powerful than a person (in how far-rereaching it can get, how pow…

In this jurisdiction, you don’t lose your rights (e.g. to free speech) because you also pursue profit.

Re: There is no A.I.

#412

Post by lm28469 »

afro88 wrote: post #267
kazinator wrote: post #38

GPT4 appears very intelligent when you discuss program code with it. It simply crazy; it can write SNOBOL4 code to extract a field from /etc/passwd. When you discuss other things, it goes off the rails a lot more. For instance, I have had it quote some passages of classic English poetry to me, stating blankly that those passages contain certain words. The passages did not contain any traces of those words or even rem…

But out of all the programmers I know, there are only certain ones that are embracing it, and the rest are still stuck in "I tried it and the code wasn't exactly what I wanted - it's all hype" land. And I think for one of the reasons you say: programmers are vain and believe everything they do requires great intelligence. A lot are still missing the forest from the trees.

I tried so much to use it for my day job but it's next to useless, it takes more time to get it to go where I want than to actually do it myself. My day job is far from requiring a great intelligence, but the tasks are too specific for chatgpt

I've used it for side projects though, especially front end stuff that I absolutely hate (js) and it works fine for that, but that's because I'm absolutely garbage at it in the first place and probably ask it to solve the most answered things ever on stackoverflow &co

Re: There is no A.I.

#413

Post by fauxpause_ »

seventhtiger wrote: post #396
fauxpause_ wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s external state. I believe it just feeds the bot the entire conversation each time. I’m open to being shown otherwise. That is to say, swapping out bots midway through the conversation should have no impact.

Feeding it the whole conversation again sounds like a perfectly valid way of keeping internal state though. It's part of its thought process.

That is the opposite of internal state. That is stateless.

F(x) is just a function without any dependence on state.

Re: There is no A.I.

#414

Post by fauxpause_ »

Robotbeat wrote: post #335
jackmott42 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are using ChatGPT and observing it keep track of conversation state, so if you are going to claim it has no internal state you will need to be more precise in what you are saying, which I suppose is that the underlying neural network is not being updated as we talk to it? yet

The attention matrix/matrices are being updated as you talk to it, within the context window.

False. They are being updated during the response only.

Edit: false-ish I suppose. You’re not wrong. But it doesn’t persist in a way people would assume and consider meaningful.

Re: There is no A.I.

#415

Post by brap »

Rury wrote: post #87

I'd wager that intelligence is nothing but a reified concept. Something which doesn't innately exist other than as an abstract concept which we have defined, to help us explain complex nature, without the need of fully understanding the underlying complexity giving rise to that nature. Like how cave men used the concept of "gods" for a satisfying explanation for why it rains - we use intelligence to ascertain why som…

Yet you have undeniable proof that your own consciousness is as real as it gets, and that you experience life in a way that isn’t just an abstract concept. It’s absolutely there (at least, from your own point of view).

I’m not a religious person and I don’t believe in a soul or anything magical like that, but it’s just impossible for me to accept that I’m just a bunch of atoms following rules. I know that there’s something there, I see the evidence right before me, even if I can’t explain it or prove it to you.

Re: There is no A.I.

#416

Post by nyolfen »

runarberg wrote: post #161
nyolfen wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are currently two things we are aware of in the universe that can reason abstractly. i don't think this is a coincidence.

Only in a very anthropocentric sense. How do we know an ant colony doesn’t reason abstractly (or a human town for that matter)? What about slime mold or ameba? Both can solve a maze as well as humans. What makes you think a forest ecosystem isn’t capable of abstract though? It is only if we narrow thought to mean precisely human-like thought when humans and human creations are uniquely capable of something. To that e…

> Only in a very anthropocentric sense.

yes, that is the sense in which we are discussing intelligence in order to debate whether the human brain and LLMs operate on similar phenomena

Re: There is no A.I.

#417

Post by lm28469 »

naasking wrote: post #339
AltruisticGapHN wrote: post #266

What the hell, we are looking at essentially millions of matrix multiplications done on powerful GPUs. And we're told this is what the brain does. Which is supremely stupid, since as Bernardo Kastrup has emphasized many times, our brains are completely UNLIKE those systems. The hubris in Big Tech right now is truly pathetic and imho a sign of a real disconnect with a sense of meaning and purpose to human life. In fac…

> What the hell, we are looking at essentially millions of matrix multiplications done on powerful GPUs. And we're told this is what the brain does. Which is supremely stupid, since as Bernardo Kastrup has emphasized many times, our brains are completely UNLIKE those systems. That's irrelevant. Transformers are Turing complete. Whatever mathematical system underlies human cognition will thus have some expression as a…

Do you have like any sources to back up you magical claims ?

The more I look into the more I see a cult/religion more than a science

Re: There is no A.I.

#418

Post by wankle »

kazinator wrote: post #38

GPT4 appears very intelligent when you discuss program code with it. It simply crazy; it can write SNOBOL4 code to extract a field from /etc/passwd. When you discuss other things, it goes off the rails a lot more. For instance, I have had it quote some passages of classic English poetry to me, stating blankly that those passages contain certain words. The passages did not contain any traces of those words or even rem…

> To be sure, what the technology does is unmistakably a form intelligence. > Computers playing chess is AI.

Computers doing anything are following the programming of their programmers. Without feeling and free will, there is no AI.

Re: There is no A.I.

#419

Post by fauxpause_ »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #409
fauxpause_ wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are they self-aware? Who tf knows? But they are reasoning through problems. We know. They are not self aware. They’re a matrix. They don’t have any internal state. Do not anthropomorphisize the notion of reasoning.

It seems you're drawing an arbitrary distinction between "internal" and "external" state. The context window is state. Doesn't matter where it is.

If I talk to Alice about my day, and then Bob reads the transcript and I ask him about our conversation, and he has no idea that he wasn’t Alice, Bob does not have internal state. He can continue the conversation. There is a brief moment of constructing some state to construct the answer. But there is literally nothing persisting and Bob wouldn’t flinch at all if we change details in the conversation history on the next response.

This is explicitly a stateless function.

Re: There is no A.I.

#420

Post by wankle »

ed_balls wrote: post #328
afro88 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But out of all the programmers I know, there are only certain ones that are embracing it, and the rest are still stuck in "I tried it and the code wasn't exactly what I wanted - it's all hype" land. And I think for one of the reasons you say: programmers are vain and believe everything they do requires great intelligence. A lot are still missing the forest from the trees.

I got a coding challenge as part of the interview process. I had 2h to complete it, but I finished in 30mins thanks to ChatGPT. I wrote some test cases and told ChatGPT to generate more. I reviewed them and copied a few relevant ones. It also hinted me that I could add support for fractions.

Stack Overflow can do that for me too, and no Bill Gates negative karma is involved.
Post reply on HN