I think they accidentally showed that humans will expand (individually) to be the size of the universe.
On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)
81–90 of 100 posts
Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)
#82In case anyone is wondering, we have made zero progress on anything even remotely resembling Artificial Intelligence. Zero . Unfortunately of course, the people who might have some of the skills needed to actually build such a thing (at the bricks and mortar level anyway), are nearly those people whose understanding of what intelligence actually is may be less than ideal. As a hint, it has nothing to do with passing…
If you showed somebody from 1921 a page of text produced by GPT-3, told them that it was written by a machine, and then told them that we'd made no progress towards artificial intelligence, they'd laugh in your face. You can take from that what you will, but I suspect it will always seem as though we've made no progress, because anything we learn to emulate we necessarily understand well enough that it will no longer…
Alternatively, they could have said, ‘oh great! Computers continued to improve and you were finally able to implement our algorithms on enough data!’
Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
The humans move goalposts because intelligence is political.
It's clear that gpt models are more competent with knowledge work than a significant percentage of humans. This is implicitly threatening, to the extent that it seems people will refuse to even consider the possibility. Dall-e is a better artist than 99% of humans. We thought we'd have time for the mental tasks as ai encroached on the menial, but it seems to be the reverse. By every measure Turing himself considered,…
Where can I try Dall-e? If it’s not available to test, how can we know?
Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)
#84WTF is this nonsense?
Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)
#85In case anyone is wondering, we have made zero progress on anything even remotely resembling Artificial Intelligence. Zero . Unfortunately of course, the people who might have some of the skills needed to actually build such a thing (at the bricks and mortar level anyway), are nearly those people whose understanding of what intelligence actually is may be less than ideal. As a hint, it has nothing to do with passing…
If you showed somebody from 1921 a page of text produced by GPT-3, told them that it was written by a machine, and then told them that we'd made no progress towards artificial intelligence, they'd laugh in your face. You can take from that what you will, but I suspect it will always seem as though we've made no progress, because anything we learn to emulate we necessarily understand well enough that it will no longer…
“The machine stops” [1]written in 1909 has AI composing things (I forget if it was poetry or music)
Orwell’s 1984, written in the mid forties, has pop songs written by machine.
In both cases the AI composed works are described in the same way Id describe modern AI composing things - dreadful.
The concept of AI is quite old. Even Medieval Europe you had philosophers making quite penetrating insights on mechanical creativity. But, lacking a computer, there was no point continuing their train of thought
[1] amazing, far seeing, book. Very short, maybe a two hour read.
Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)
#86WTF is this nonsense?
It's a paradox of the "look I proved AGI is impossible" papers.
Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)
#87Paper published April 1, 2017. References include "Jack and the beanstalk", Tom from Urban Dictionary and The Matrix.
Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)
#88Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you showed somebody from 1921 a page of text produced by GPT-3, told them that it was written by a machine, and then told them that we'd made no progress towards artificial intelligence, they'd laugh in your face. You can take from that what you will, but I suspect it will always seem as though we've made no progress, because anything we learn to emulate we necessarily understand well enough that it will no longer…
“The machine stops” [1]written in 1909 has AI composing things (I forget if it was poetry or music) Orwell’s 1984, written in the mid forties, has pop songs written by machine. In both cases the AI composed works are described in the same way Id describe modern AI composing things - dreadful. The concept of AI is quite old. Even Medieval Europe you had philosophers making quite penetrating insights on mechanical crea…
Some AI generated music certainly passes as normal music.
Re: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)
#90In case anyone is wondering, we have made zero progress on anything even remotely resembling Artificial Intelligence. Zero . Unfortunately of course, the people who might have some of the skills needed to actually build such a thing (at the bricks and mortar level anyway), are nearly those people whose understanding of what intelligence actually is may be less than ideal. As a hint, it has nothing to do with passing…
> zero progress on anything even remotely resembling Artificial Intelligence
I know it's a bit hyperbolic but Skynet comes to mind every day I use Copilot. It's just amazing the kind of things it can suggest/adapt to. We're definitely on some path of progress.