71–80 of 92 posts
Just wondering... What is Intellgience?
Or were you looking for a different definition?
We are already on the cusp of fully automated reasoning, and once we have fully automated reasoning, OpenAI and Anthropic can just dedicate part of their compute towards generating new high quality novel output, which will then be fed as training data during pretraining of subsequent models.
Just wondering... What is Intellgience?
Just wondering... What is Intellgience?
This feels like a restating of the idea that for any given endeavor AI raises the floor of quality but doesn't push the ceiling.
Generative AI is the average of all human knowledge
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We might both agree its a poor definition, but at least it's a poor definition that's observable and neutral. That's useful in regards to this conversation. Where as the other answer is simply "I can't say, but it's not [this]" and that isn't useful at all. It's simply opinion, which is literally the worst definition around. Personally, I don't define intelligence as "whatever qsera acknowledges as intelligence with…
I think it is useless as a definition, so not even a poor one. But here you go, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47918103
Same for my dog.
Same for entire cultures, including adult humans (anumeric cultures).
Arguably, they're constantly doing calculus, because they can walk, throw, catch, etc - but none of them can count.
---
That said, to the point of my original comment - forcing a definition was absolutely useful, because it allows a more detailed and interesting conversation than "qsera doesn't believe an LLM is intelligent".
I agree that one is a poor definition, though. I also don't really think it rules out LLMs.
Generative AI is the average of all human knowledge
Why does it need to be the average? It seems to me more like it models the manifold of human knowledge. However we often query for the average, because that is often good enough and gives us quick results, but there is nothing fundamentally preventing us from sending AI into the deep end of under-explored territory and perhaps coming back with something new. It is ultimately the exploration vs exploitation trade off.
What's stopping us is that AI works by manipulating tokens and language but has no connection to reality as it exists. Einstein famously conceived of special relativity by imagining what it would be like to fly alongside a light wave[1]. This is a process that integrates spatial reasoning and imagination informed by living in the real universe where you can see objects moving or waves propagating in a pond. The language only comes later as a means of communicating these intuitions to others.
[1] https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Chasing_the_light/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is useless as a definition, so not even a poor one. But here you go, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47918103
I have a two year old that can't count. She can definitely walk around, talk, eat, and do all sorts of other things that I would argue indicate some form of intelligence. Same for my dog. Same for entire cultures, including adult humans (anumeric cultures). Arguably, they're constantly doing calculus, because they can walk, throw, catch, etc - but none of them can count. --- That said, to the point of my original com…
Is a robot that can walk, throw and catch is intelligent?
Last day there was a robot that can play ping pong? Is that intelligent?