561–565 of 565 posts
I have a feeling that this simply has been in the training data somewhere and Fable just resurfaced it. From my experience Fable is incredibly dumb. It cannot even produce coherent English text and makes basic logic mistakes even Qwen 27B would be ashamed of.
Is this the anti-AI crowd's last line of defense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's an alternative take. Climate change, and the myriad related environmental crises, are essentially a product of human population and technology. Population will follow its course, up and then down. The wildcard is technology. Yes, AI's energy hunger is worsening things right now and that's a problem. But, personally, I can't help be hopeful that AI's sheer potential might come to invert that curve. At the very…
AI is the new god. People have started to believe that AI, when it finally arrives in its full glory, will bring some kind of salvation to humanity.
>> I can't help be hopeful that AI's sheer potential might come to invert that curve. At the very least we could really use a revolutionary technology and now we may have one.
And you get "god" and "(human) salvation" out of that?
This is pure projection. Anti-AI zealots are projecting things onto the technology and its users that simply do not (generally) exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here that many LLM advocates fall prey to. No one claims (anymore) that LLMs are completely useless. We agree that these tools can boost productivity. But there is a fundamental difference between human creativity and the statistical processing of large amounts of data in an artificial neural network. The latter can yield new insights for the person operating the LLM.…
> There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here that many LLM advocates fall prey to. I am not an LLM advocate (nor am I an LLM skeptic), I simply observe and think about what I see. So, I guess your comment is not intended for me? > No one claims (anymore) that LLMs are completely useless. We agree that these tools can boost productivity. I read this as something a skeptic would write as apologium for himsel…
So yes, I am also skeptical. I think these companies are more intoncartelizing and colluding via propaganda than delivering stuff. They do deliver some, but very far from their promises.
These companies dangerously mimic behaviors I usually attribute to politicians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Putting LLMs in loops with tool calls has created tons of emergent behaviour beyond simply being a search tool
If you search randomness, you ll get any behavior that you can imagine. That does not mean that the tool is NOT doing a search. In the case of LLMs, it is not searching the whole of the randomness, but instead it just search among the grammatically correct sentences that is consistent with the existing patterns found in the existing written down human knowledge.
I don’t think LLMs will reach the same level as humans but I would argue it is still a form of limited intelligence
It’s not a binary thing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The question for me is where it leaves innovation. Have we really peaked as a species that we so easily want to give up on the young and hand them over a tool that would substitute reasoning? This is a crucial question but I'm afraid the ship has sailed. We should focus on how to prevent atrophy and cultivate our skills in spite of LLMs. For me and many others this means doing thins the old way with occasional assi…
This is all valid and I am with you here. However I can totally imagine kids in 10 years viewing writing code by hand same as we view making fire using flint and steel: yes can be useful, but why bother? Except in this case I fear we're losing something very important as opposed to the above example.