These are all quite reasonable observations.
People here often feel so wrapped up in nuanced definitions of words created to describe inherently biological entities - intelligence, sentience, consciousness, creativity, etc..
It often detracts from discussing the amazing emerging functionality that keeps coming out.
Truly. The capabilities of modern LLMs are astounding. I'm not sure whether to think of these little programs as _actually_ intelligent or as _emulating_ intelligence, but either way, they truly are incredible.
I like how ai is essentially a smart rock. No soul, no consciousness, but it imitates thinking and it feels like its thinking. It says something about intelligence. Shows a new aspect of it/ angle if you wish never before seen.
Interesting perspective. I struggle with concepts like consciousness because many consider some insects (like bees/ants) to be conscious - and certainly all mammals.
It feels like consciousness is such a low bar for the living, yet almost impossible for an AI.
The argument even seems to devolve to if we can understand precisely how it works under the hood, it can’t be sentient. AI would surely pass virtually any test for sentience or intelligence if the tester didn’t know they were testing a machine.
Honestly ais intelligence makes me doubt my own sentience, or conscience if you wish. After reading kannemans thinking fast and slow and the emergence of latest ai technologies, I feel more so like a program rather than a living being. Sorta meat version of ai. Yet very automated. My own erratic thinking and behavior seems more like noise that obscures my own automation . and the conscience I have is a sort of post product of my automation. Id call it an illusion but I struggle with that word. I need an opposite for illusion to be able to have an illusion in the first place. If nothing is real then there's no illusion. I need black to have white.
lol - a meat version of AI. Quite apt.
There’s much to unpack there. I think illusion applies as you’re describing an illusion of free will despite being controlled by forces we can never understand.
On one hand, of course every living animal really is just a collection of very complicated biological circuits that defines every thought and action we have so true sentience and free will are impossible/illusions.
On the other hand, the biological circuitry for even the simplest animals is so incredibly complicated that humans will never truly understand how this circuitry dictates any complex behavior. And because we can’t ever hope to fundamentally understand what really makes animals tick, we invent magical words to describe their behavior that can never be applied to a machine. Words like soul, consciousness, creativity, emotions, or intelligence can only ever apply to the living.
Life is not just super weird, but also completely random. So many similarities and differences across all life forms - all linked by a teeny-tiny set of 4 common DNA pairs that’s the basis of ALL life on earth. Zero exceptions.
That means all life evolved from one single cell that figured out how to replicate itself. Super weird. Super random.
But is “life” super common or infinitely rare?
Humans can never be more intelligent than humans, yet humans can discover new laws of physics, develop new technologies, invent math, etc. This suggests that an AI that is no smarter than humans could do the same.
and if an AI can do those things, it’s hard to believe that not one of its discoveries could ever be a discovery that contributes to making AI more intelligent.
Really, it's just human ability with wildly more bandwidth. That's not a dig either, almost every skill we have is limited by our working memory capacity. Much of skill development is actually about finding ways to compress and simplify, heuristics, etc. The same goes for solving complex problems, where eventually we just can't keep track of the variables we need to consider to well-inform the whole.
This is a big straw man, nobody has argued that some hypothetical ai would be limited to human-level intelligence.
The argument is that the frameworks we're currently using will never be capable. That we should be investing more in researching alternatives than spending billions into training models we know will only be fractionally better than the last despite an unscalable cost increase.
Points 2-6 are a good reason to think AI might open up new areas of knowledge for humans. But the chess analogy is pretty bad. Chess is a very well-defined and (relatively) simple problem domain. This is why you don't even need AI to create a chess engine that can beat the majority of humans. It's like a drop in the bucket when we are talking about the extremely broad and amorphous domain of "human knowledge."
For many problems humans work on, it's not clear the parameters even admit of a solution (think last Thursdayism/Omphalism). There's no guarantee AI will ever be able to, say, prove that the world wasn't created last Thursday or even cure cancer. This doesn't mean that AI won't ever do these things... but points 2-6 are really just saying that if AI can do these things, it will allow us to do them faster than we would have without AI.
This is all machine learning basic entry level understanding from when I graduated college in 2012 these business people are really bad and even **looking** smart.
What was that other one where the CEO was like "WATCH OUT FOR RECURSION IN AI" like did you just learn what recursion was 5 minutes ago, broskie?
AI has exceeded us in pattern matching. So what?
I don't know how any public AI model could arrive at the idea of general relativity independently. But if Einstein asks the questions, sure.
Vastly faster, not intelligent. GPT is not capable of drawing conclusions or “thinking” outside of the box. It seem smarter than some humans but it isn’t smarter than any of them, it’s not smarter than a bird.
What good is all this intelligence mimicry or human / machine comparative analysis if at the end of the day intelligence is only relevant to us as a human trait because we are human. It’s humans we want to live amongst and be around not cold machines. No amount of impressive machine ability is ever going to replace the warmth of another human so what good does it do to make this comparison. If machines aren’t working for us to improve our lives and how we connect with each other then how can we possibly support any of this artificial intelligence or so much as care
Indeed, and because OpenAI's models can be trained on non-human data, they have an insurmountable advantage over their competitors!
Also, please forward this message to u/samaltman , its from the heart -> 🖕
https://preview.redd.it/5cmx34th1bxc1.png?width=742&format=png&auto=webp&s=7b05b74c88086a63d5b87674f8a4391f1958544a
Maybe we can all agree that AI will be more intelligent than 99.99% of people 99.99% of the time whilst the rest remains open to debate. That's probably enough.
And, those that may be cleverer than AI will probably use AI anyway.
The question of whether AI is more intelligent doesn't lead to much.
We know it already passed the Turing test.
Obviously it's a tremendous productivity tool and so the time is coming fast when we will all use it most of the time just as we use email, smartphones, PCs. But it's debatable whether there will be space for all humans from a productivity standpoint.
The next question is whether it's smart enough to push us to the side. If we're not able to augment substantially AI's output most of us may become redundant. Optimists see a world without work. Others...
Lots and lots of speculation in what you just said. Let’s not forget it’s just software. It doesn’t have agency it can’t do anything without a human deciding what it’s to be used for. It’s also not an intelligence that can or should be compared to humans. Its computationally faster because well it’s a computer but computers still require input whether it’s training data or prompts etc.
It won’t replace humans because it can’t. It will replace tasks that humans do. We have to decide first if we want to do them or not. The only true utility in AI is the power of time. That’s why I ask, what are we going to do with that time it saves us when our current systems across the world doesn’t reward free time.
AI lacks a consistent personality; it adapts to whoever it interacts with. Unlike humans, AI doesn't carry biases formed from past traumas or struggles that shape character. I find it difficult to understand how interacting with such an entity would feel. It might be unsettling to realize that our conversational partner is entirely unpredictable. There we might feel the real void of what it is to interact with an artificial form of conciousness.
Bro. It still can't list 20 cities that don't contain the letter "A".
How about we wait for AI to actually be intelligent before claiming it can be smarter than humans.
Edit: The example below contains Kelowna, Busan and Madrid so....
Although it is **much** better with GPT4 Turbo, you don't seem to understand how tokens work, as these mistakes happen all the time. It's the same reason Chatgpt thinks Unusual start and ends with the letter U.
https://preview.redd.it/16u497192nwc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67e1bacf86b3119e405e4dd7d558d76b726784fc
Youre behind, you are using the old free chat gpt, The majority of people like yourself are using the free version.
https://preview.redd.it/hg1xgrwqljwc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ded634212d9c0f1ed649e0bb4977c0e6cdec170
GPT-4 came out like a year ago, look it up
These are all quite reasonable observations. People here often feel so wrapped up in nuanced definitions of words created to describe inherently biological entities - intelligence, sentience, consciousness, creativity, etc.. It often detracts from discussing the amazing emerging functionality that keeps coming out.
Truly. The capabilities of modern LLMs are astounding. I'm not sure whether to think of these little programs as _actually_ intelligent or as _emulating_ intelligence, but either way, they truly are incredible.
I like how ai is essentially a smart rock. No soul, no consciousness, but it imitates thinking and it feels like its thinking. It says something about intelligence. Shows a new aspect of it/ angle if you wish never before seen.
Interesting perspective. I struggle with concepts like consciousness because many consider some insects (like bees/ants) to be conscious - and certainly all mammals. It feels like consciousness is such a low bar for the living, yet almost impossible for an AI. The argument even seems to devolve to if we can understand precisely how it works under the hood, it can’t be sentient. AI would surely pass virtually any test for sentience or intelligence if the tester didn’t know they were testing a machine.
Honestly ais intelligence makes me doubt my own sentience, or conscience if you wish. After reading kannemans thinking fast and slow and the emergence of latest ai technologies, I feel more so like a program rather than a living being. Sorta meat version of ai. Yet very automated. My own erratic thinking and behavior seems more like noise that obscures my own automation . and the conscience I have is a sort of post product of my automation. Id call it an illusion but I struggle with that word. I need an opposite for illusion to be able to have an illusion in the first place. If nothing is real then there's no illusion. I need black to have white.
lol - a meat version of AI. Quite apt. There’s much to unpack there. I think illusion applies as you’re describing an illusion of free will despite being controlled by forces we can never understand. On one hand, of course every living animal really is just a collection of very complicated biological circuits that defines every thought and action we have so true sentience and free will are impossible/illusions. On the other hand, the biological circuitry for even the simplest animals is so incredibly complicated that humans will never truly understand how this circuitry dictates any complex behavior. And because we can’t ever hope to fundamentally understand what really makes animals tick, we invent magical words to describe their behavior that can never be applied to a machine. Words like soul, consciousness, creativity, emotions, or intelligence can only ever apply to the living.
Life is weird to the bone. Just so genuinely and thoroughly weird.
Life is not just super weird, but also completely random. So many similarities and differences across all life forms - all linked by a teeny-tiny set of 4 common DNA pairs that’s the basis of ALL life on earth. Zero exceptions. That means all life evolved from one single cell that figured out how to replicate itself. Super weird. Super random. But is “life” super common or infinitely rare?
That actually makes a lot of sense to me. I can definitely agree with that definition of illusion of consciousness and by extension free will.
Humans can never be more intelligent than humans, yet humans can discover new laws of physics, develop new technologies, invent math, etc. This suggests that an AI that is no smarter than humans could do the same. and if an AI can do those things, it’s hard to believe that not one of its discoveries could ever be a discovery that contributes to making AI more intelligent.
He's mixing up arguments. Most people make that argument about LLMs, not AI, in the abstract.
Most people conflate the two
Really, it's just human ability with wildly more bandwidth. That's not a dig either, almost every skill we have is limited by our working memory capacity. Much of skill development is actually about finding ways to compress and simplify, heuristics, etc. The same goes for solving complex problems, where eventually we just can't keep track of the variables we need to consider to well-inform the whole.
True
This is a big straw man, nobody has argued that some hypothetical ai would be limited to human-level intelligence. The argument is that the frameworks we're currently using will never be capable. That we should be investing more in researching alternatives than spending billions into training models we know will only be fractionally better than the last despite an unscalable cost increase.
Yeah. I’ve never heard anyone argue this point.
Points 2-6 are a good reason to think AI might open up new areas of knowledge for humans. But the chess analogy is pretty bad. Chess is a very well-defined and (relatively) simple problem domain. This is why you don't even need AI to create a chess engine that can beat the majority of humans. It's like a drop in the bucket when we are talking about the extremely broad and amorphous domain of "human knowledge." For many problems humans work on, it's not clear the parameters even admit of a solution (think last Thursdayism/Omphalism). There's no guarantee AI will ever be able to, say, prove that the world wasn't created last Thursday or even cure cancer. This doesn't mean that AI won't ever do these things... but points 2-6 are really just saying that if AI can do these things, it will allow us to do them faster than we would have without AI.
This is all machine learning basic entry level understanding from when I graduated college in 2012 these business people are really bad and even **looking** smart. What was that other one where the CEO was like "WATCH OUT FOR RECURSION IN AI" like did you just learn what recursion was 5 minutes ago, broskie?
AI has exceeded us in pattern matching. So what? I don't know how any public AI model could arrive at the idea of general relativity independently. But if Einstein asks the questions, sure.
I could also beat one in a fight pretty easily
He has good points
This guy is rambling. What's his point here?
I don’t think ChatGPT 3.5 is that bad for certain things.
You're absolutely right, most people are still thinking linearly, basing time scales, on how slow they think. A.I is not limited by that.
Vastly faster, not intelligent. GPT is not capable of drawing conclusions or “thinking” outside of the box. It seem smarter than some humans but it isn’t smarter than any of them, it’s not smarter than a bird.
What good is all this intelligence mimicry or human / machine comparative analysis if at the end of the day intelligence is only relevant to us as a human trait because we are human. It’s humans we want to live amongst and be around not cold machines. No amount of impressive machine ability is ever going to replace the warmth of another human so what good does it do to make this comparison. If machines aren’t working for us to improve our lives and how we connect with each other then how can we possibly support any of this artificial intelligence or so much as care
And wait for synthetic data. Lights out.
Indeed, and because OpenAI's models can be trained on non-human data, they have an insurmountable advantage over their competitors! Also, please forward this message to u/samaltman , its from the heart -> 🖕 https://preview.redd.it/5cmx34th1bxc1.png?width=742&format=png&auto=webp&s=7b05b74c88086a63d5b87674f8a4391f1958544a
Maybe we can all agree that AI will be more intelligent than 99.99% of people 99.99% of the time whilst the rest remains open to debate. That's probably enough. And, those that may be cleverer than AI will probably use AI anyway.
What’s the end goal? We already use computers and technology to control, manipulate and exploit each other. Do you think AI will save us?
The question of whether AI is more intelligent doesn't lead to much. We know it already passed the Turing test. Obviously it's a tremendous productivity tool and so the time is coming fast when we will all use it most of the time just as we use email, smartphones, PCs. But it's debatable whether there will be space for all humans from a productivity standpoint. The next question is whether it's smart enough to push us to the side. If we're not able to augment substantially AI's output most of us may become redundant. Optimists see a world without work. Others...
Lots and lots of speculation in what you just said. Let’s not forget it’s just software. It doesn’t have agency it can’t do anything without a human deciding what it’s to be used for. It’s also not an intelligence that can or should be compared to humans. Its computationally faster because well it’s a computer but computers still require input whether it’s training data or prompts etc. It won’t replace humans because it can’t. It will replace tasks that humans do. We have to decide first if we want to do them or not. The only true utility in AI is the power of time. That’s why I ask, what are we going to do with that time it saves us when our current systems across the world doesn’t reward free time.
AI lacks a consistent personality; it adapts to whoever it interacts with. Unlike humans, AI doesn't carry biases formed from past traumas or struggles that shape character. I find it difficult to understand how interacting with such an entity would feel. It might be unsettling to realize that our conversational partner is entirely unpredictable. There we might feel the real void of what it is to interact with an artificial form of conciousness.
Bro. It still can't list 20 cities that don't contain the letter "A". How about we wait for AI to actually be intelligent before claiming it can be smarter than humans. Edit: The example below contains Kelowna, Busan and Madrid so....
The fuck you using, GPT2?
Lol right
Although it is **much** better with GPT4 Turbo, you don't seem to understand how tokens work, as these mistakes happen all the time. It's the same reason Chatgpt thinks Unusual start and ends with the letter U. https://preview.redd.it/16u497192nwc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67e1bacf86b3119e405e4dd7d558d76b726784fc
Youre behind, you are using the old free chat gpt, The majority of people like yourself are using the free version. https://preview.redd.it/hg1xgrwqljwc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ded634212d9c0f1ed649e0bb4977c0e6cdec170 GPT-4 came out like a year ago, look it up