Submitted by SilentRunning t3_1245bzj in Futurology
Comments
SilentRunning OP t1_jdxtwri wrote
Well it is an opinion piece that raises a very interesting question which doesn't/shouldn't restrict a discussion.
Surur t1_jdxugcy wrote
Informed opinions are always more valuable, especially when she makes technical claims like:
> But GPT-4 and other large language models like it are simply mirroring databases of text — close to a trillion words for the previous model — whose scale is difficult to contemplate. Helped along by an army of humans reprograming it with corrections, the models glom words together based on probability. That is not intelligence.
[deleted] t1_jdxvz10 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jdxwr7q wrote
[deleted]
luniz420 t1_jdxvfvr wrote
That's just a fact.
Great article though
SilentRunning OP t1_jdyvzth wrote
Are there ANY groups out there that have a A.I. system that creates a conversation without gleening from databases on the internet?
But it is an opinion piece, so yes informed opinions matter a bit.
SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_je0bbhp wrote
Are there any people who can hold a conversation after being raised alone in a dark room?
SilentRunning OP t1_je2jia2 wrote
Comparing oranges to a door knob. Is a computer conscious? I argue that it isn't. It has no idea what to do until it is turned on. Same thing with A.I., until it receives a prompt it will just sit there. If it gets something wrong/incorrect it doesn't correct itself it has to get reprogrammed by a human.
SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_je2myii wrote
>If it gets something wrong/incorrect it doesn't correct itself it has to get reprogrammed by a human.
That's not even accurate. It can realize it's wrong.
SilentRunning OP t1_je2navi wrote
It is programmed to know when some data is incorrect, it doesn't realize anything. But yet it can't correct the method that brought the incorrect data until a human corrects the program. Until that happens it continues to bring incorrect results if the prompts are the same. This give the impression that it is learning on it's own, but is actually far from the truth. Each version of GPT was updated by human coders, it has learned anything on it's own and is far from being able to.
Thatingles t1_jdz5q9c wrote
What really is human intelligence? Are we actually looking at intelligence or just wetware that can gleen information off the environment better than other animals?
See how easy it is to switch that around. Intelligence is relatively easy to define in terms of outputs (I can read and write, a fish cannot) but much harder to define as a property or quality.
Software like the LLM's have some outputs that are as good as a human can produce. Wether they do it through intelligence or enhanced search is an interesting debate, but the outcome is certainly intelligent.
SilentRunning OP t1_je2k95u wrote
Human intelligence isn't just gleening info from experience. Take for instance Einsteins theory of relativity. What experience did he gleen that from? Where did he even get the idea? See how difficult it is?
>Intelligence-Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. wiki
SilentRunning OP t1_jdxtbsp wrote
What really is AI? Are we actually looking at intelligence or just software that can gleen information off the internet better.
HomarusSimpson t1_jdz9x4l wrote
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim" Edsger Dijkstra
luniz420 t1_je15jjm wrote
So you don't think actual AI is interesting?
HomarusSimpson t1_je1i7uq wrote
Do you think a submarine can swim?
luniz420 t1_je1p68t wrote
I think it's worth understanding the difference...
SilentRunning OP t1_je2jq92 wrote
True, the details are all in the "How".
FuturologyBot t1_jdxx04a wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/SilentRunning:
What really is AI? Are we actually looking at intelligence or just software that can gleen information off the internet better.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1245bzj/opinion_parmy_olson_theres_no_such_thing_as/jdxtbsp/
[deleted] t1_jdyqb28 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdzc2y3 wrote
[removed]
belated_harbinger t1_je0ydx6 wrote
I think we're all at the stage that we know this isn't a living, thinking thing. But AI is a good blanket description for reactive, responsive and predictive technologies like this.
luniz420 t1_je15ph4 wrote
Yeah sure like sandwich is a good blanket description for any food item that contains a piece of bread. There's only one reason to use "close enough" terminology to describe a product and that's so you can sell it for more to naive consumers.
Surur t1_jdxtplf wrote
The author has a Bachelors Degree in Journalism and Sociology and has only been a technology writer for two years.
I doubt she is qualified to say there is no such thing as AI.