The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
theideasletter.org
The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
1–10 of 92 posts
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#2Just wondering... What is Intellgience?
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#3Just wondering... What is Intellgience?
The titel has a typo as the actual article has the title "The Social Edge of Intelligence".
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#4Hey, the more we think about our information economy/environment as a commons, the better.
I fully expect our future to involve PhD factories where doctorates label AI output for the most competitive rates possible.
The majority of us will have to contend with an information environment that is polluted and overrun.
I’ll argue with that the internet pre social media was the “healthiest” in terms of our digital commons.
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#5I'll say it again: because we do not have any material focus on pragmatic, disagreement structuring effective communications, (people are not taught how to discuss disagreement) not only is our current AI being massively misunderstood, the human population do not have the discrete language skills to even use AI without massive hallucination issues that they are in control, but do not have the language nuanced understanding to, well, understand.
The reason being, when taught how to effectively disagree all these counterfactual concepts that AI loses manifest, they are logically necessary. But if people are not taught how to explore the landscape of ideas, they become "fascists for the common" and literally create the hellscape civilization we are all trapped within.
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#6Generative AI is the average of all human knowledge
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#7Just wondering... What is Intellgience?
If you gotta ask, you can't afford it.
~ intelligence
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#8Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#9There is a fundamental assumption made about the ability of AI here that I believe is wrong.
It assumes that the outputs are lacking because of a limit of ability.
I think there is a strong case to make that many of their limitations come from them doing what we have told them to do. Hallucinations are the stand out example of this. If you train it to give answers to questions, it will answer questions, but it might have to make up the answer to do so. This isn't not knowing that it does not know. This is doing the task given to it regardless of whether it knows or not.
If you were given the task of writing the script for a TV show with the criteria that it not offend any people whatsoever. You are told to make something that is as likeable as you can make it without anyone not-liking it at all. The options for what you can do are reduced to something that is okay-ish but rather bland.
That's what AI is giving us. OK but rather bland. It's giving it to us because that's what we've told it we want.
Re: The Social Edge of Intelligence: Individual Gain, Collective Loss
#10There is a fundamental assumption made about the ability of AI here that I believe is wrong. It assumes that the outputs are lacking because of a limit of ability. I think there is a strong case to make that many of their limitations come from them doing what we have told them to do. Hallucinations are the stand out example of this. If you train it to give answers to questions, it will answer questions, but it might…
> I think there is a strong case to make that many of their limitations come from them doing what we have told them to do. Hallucinations are the stand out example of this. If you train it to give answers to questions, it will answer questions, but it might have to make up the answer to do so. This isn't not knowing that it does not know. This is doing the task given to it regardless of whether it knows or not.
Are you asserting that an LLM could be NOT trained to answer when it knows it doesn’t know the answer, or if that’s not possible be trained to NOT answer when it knows it doesn’t know the answer?
If so, I would believe your thinking, but for some reason I have not yet seen a single LLM that behaves with that kind of self-knowledge.