Submitted by Malachiian t3_12348jj in Futurology
speedywilfork t1_jdt5zoz wrote
no it isnt, it still has no ability to understand abstraction, this is required for general intelligence.
Malachiian OP t1_jdtf3as wrote
What would be an example of that?
After reading the paper it seems like it's WAAAY beyond that.
Is there an example that would show that it can understand abstraction?
SplendidPunkinButter t1_jdv760u wrote
It’s a large language model. We know what it does, and we know that what it does isn’t general AI.
Here’s an interesting and insightful article that explains how it works in terms most people can understand: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/
I don’t share your views on this topic, but seriously it’s a very good article that explains a lot
Kaitte t1_jdvjyk6 wrote
"We can explain it therefore it can't really be intelligent."
speedywilfork t1_jdv74tu wrote
we don't even know how WE understand abstraction. so there is no way to program it. but as an example if you ask an AI "do you live in a computer" it won't really know how to answer that question. However if you asked a human "do AI live in a computer", most would immediately understand what you were asking. it is an abstraction.
Much of how we communicate is through abstraction, we just don't realize it. an AI wouldnt have any idea what to do. another example would be a "drive through" it is an abstraction. Humans know what it is, but an AI would be clueless. It could recognize what the window looked like it various form and shapes. but what if you pulled up to a restaurant and the line was 30 cars deep with a man standing in the middle of a parking lot waiting to take your order? you would know exactly where to go. but not an AI
Surur t1_jdve4sx wrote
Your examples are pretty bad and you should feel bad. > "do you live in a computer"
>> As an AI language model, I do not possess consciousness or emotions, and I do not "live" in the conventional sense. I exist as a complex set of algorithms and data structures running on computer servers. My purpose is to process and generate human-like text based on the input I receive.
.
> an AI wouldnt have any idea what to do. another example would be a "drive through"
>> As an AI language model, I don't have the ability to physically drive or navigate a vehicle. However, I can provide you with a detailed description of how one might navigate through a drive-through.
>> Approach the drive-through entrance: Look for signs indicating the entrance to the drive-through lane. These signs usually have arrows or the word "drive-through" on them. The entrance is typically located on one side of the restaurant, and you may need to drive around the building to find it.
>> Enter the drive-through lane: Once you locate the entrance, drive your vehicle into the designated lane. There may be multiple lanes in some cases, so follow any signs or arrows to ensure you're in the correct one. Maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front of you to avoid any potential collisions.
>> Review the menu: As you approach the menu board, take some time to review the available options. Many drive-through restaurants have large, easy-to-read menu boards with pictures and prices of the items. Some may also have a separate board for promotional items
Cut for brevity.
speedywilfork t1_jdvkqtr wrote
>Your examples are pretty bad and you should feel bad.
no they aren't. they illustrated my point perfectly. the AI didn't know what you were asking when you asked "do you live in a computer" because it doesn't understand that we are not asking if it is "alive" in the biological sense. we are asking if it is "alive" in the rhetorical sense. also it doesn't even understand the term "computer" because we an not asking about a literal macbook or PC. we are speaking rhetorically and use the term "computer" to mean something akin to "digital world" it failed to recognize the intended meaning of the words, therefore it failed.
>Approach the drive-through entrance: Look for signs indicating the entrance to the drive-through lane. These signs usually have arrows or the word "drive-through" on them. The entrance is typically located on one side of the restaurant, and you may need to drive around the building to find it.
another failure. what if i go to a concert in a field and there is a impromptu line to buy tickets. no lane markers, no window, no arrows, just a guy and a chair holding some paper. AI fails again.
Surur t1_jdvnp4j wrote
Lol. I can see with you the AI can never win.
speedywilfork t1_jdvt9wv wrote
if an AI fails to understand your intent would you call it a win?
Surur t1_jdw2bc1 wrote
The fault can be on either side.
speedywilfork t1_jdw6ptz wrote
so if an AI can't recognize a "drive through" it is the "drive throughs" fault? not to mention a human would investigate. it would ask someone "where do i buy tickets?" someone would say "over there", they would point to the guy at the chair and the human would immediately understand. an AI would have zero comprehension of "over there"
Surur t1_jdw9hy7 wrote
> so if an AI can't recognize a "drive through" it is the "drive throughs" fault?
If the AI can not recognize an obvious drive-through it would be the AIs fault, but why do you suppose that is the case?
speedywilfork t1_jdwo2mg wrote
>If the AI can not recognize an obvious drive-through it would be the AIs fault, but why do you suppose that is the case?
i already told you because "drive through" is an abstraction or a concept, it isnt any one thing. anything can be a drive through. And AI can't comprehend abstractions. sometimes the only clue you have to perceive a drive through is a line. not all lines are drive throughs, and not all drive throughs have a line. they are both abstractions, and there is no way to "teach" an abstraction. We don't know how we know these things. we just do.
another example would be "farm" a farm can be anything. it can be in your backyard, or even on your window sill, inside of a building, or the thing you put ants in. so to ask and AI to identify a "farm" wouldnt be possible.
Surur t1_jdwqzq5 wrote
You are proposing this as a theory, but I am telling you an AI can make the same context-based decisions as you can.
speedywilfork t1_jdx4i47 wrote
So i have 4 lines, 3 of them are drive throughs. so you are telling me that an AI can tell the difference between a line of cars in a parking lot, a line of cars on a road, a line of cars parked on the side of the road, and a line of cars at a drive through? what distinguishing characteristics do each of these lines have that would tip off the AI to which 3 are the drive throughs?
Surur t1_jdx9cvb wrote
The AI would use the same context clues you would use.
You have to remember that AIs are actually super-human when it comes to pattern matching in many instances.
speedywilfork t1_jdxdkr6 wrote
i have already told you that anything can be a drive through. so what contextual clues does a field have that would clue an AI into it being a drive through if there are no lines, no lanes, no arrows, only a guy in a chair. AI don't "assume" things. i want to know specifics. if you can't give me specifics, it cannot be programmed. AI requires specifics.
I mean seriously, i can disable an autonomous car with a salt circle. it has no idea it can drive over it. do you think a 5 year old child could navigate out of a salt circle? that shows you how dumb they really are.
Surur t1_jdxeibf wrote
> anything can be a drive through
Then that is a somewhat meaningless question you are asking, right?
Anything that will clue you in can also clue an AI in.
For example the sign that says Drive-Thru.
Which is needed because humans are not psychic and anything can be a drive-through.
> AI requires specifics.
No, neural networks are actually pretty good at vagueness.
> I mean seriously, i can disable an autonomous car with a salt circle.
That is a 2017 story. 5 years old.
speedywilfork t1_jdxm0sp wrote
>Anything that will clue you in can also clue an AI in.
>For example the sign that says Drive-Thru.
why do you keep ignoring my very specific example then? i am in a car with no steering wheel, i want to go to a pumpkin patch with my family. i get to the pumpkin patch in my autonomous car where there is a man sitting in a chair in the middle of a field. how does the AI know where to go?
I am giving you a real life scenario that i experience every year. there are no lanes, nor signs, nor paths, it is a field. how does the AI navigate this?
Surur t1_jdxri6v wrote
What makes you think a modern AI can not solve this problem?
So I gave your question to chatgpt and all its guesses were spot on.
And this was its answer on how it would drive there - all perfectly sensible.
And this is the worst it will ever be - the AI agents are only going to get smarter and smarter.
speedywilfork t1_jdy1kdc wrote
>What makes you think a modern AI can not solve this problem?
because you gave it distinct textual clues to determine an answer. Pumpkin patch. table. sign. it didnt determine anything on its own. you did all of the thinking for it. this is the point i am making. it can't do anything on its own.
if i say to a human "lets go to the pumpkin patch". we all get in the car. drive to the location, see that man in the field, drive to the man in the field, that is taking tickets, not the man directing traffic. and we park. all i have to verbalize is "lets go to the pumpkin patch"
An AI on the other hand i have to tell it "lets go to the pumpkin patch" then when we get there i have to say "drive to the man sitting at the table, not the man directing traffic, when you get there stop next to the man, not in front or behind the man" then you pay, now you say "now drive over to the man directing traffic, follow his gestures he will show you where to park" (assuming it can follow gestures).
All the AI did was follow commands, it didnt "think" at all, because it can't. do you realize how annoying this would become after a while? an average human would be better and could perform more work.
Surur t1_jdy3nm7 wrote
Gpt4 is multimodal. In the very near future you will be able to feed it a video feed and it won't need any text descriptions.
Anyway, if you don't think the current version is smart enough, just wait for next year.
speedywilfork t1_je067dv wrote
you don't understand, in my example it HAS a video feed. how do you think it see the guy in the field? i am presenting a forward looking scenario. i have been developing AI for 20 years. i am not speculating here. i am telling you what is factual. it isn't coming next year, it isn't coming at all. there is no way to program for things like "initiative" and that is what is required to take AI to the next level. everything is a command to AI, it has no initiative. it drives to the field and stops, because to it, the task is complete. it got us to the pumpkin patch. task complete. now what? you have to feed it the next task, that's what. it won't do it on it's own
Surur t1_je074un wrote
> everything is a command to AI, it has no initiative. it drives to the field and stops, because to it, the task is complete.
Sure, but a fully conscious and intelligent human taxi driver would do the same.
AIs are perfectly capable of making multi-step plans, and of course when they come to the end of the plan they should go dormant. We don't want AIs driving around with no one in command.
speedywilfork t1_je09cgt wrote
>Sure, but a fully conscious and intelligent human taxi driver would do the same.
but not me driving myself, and that is the point. my point is we won't have level 5 autonomy in anything outside of designated routes and possibly taxis. there are things that an AI will never be able to do, and a human can do them infinitely better. so my AI might drive me to the pumpkin patch, them i will take over.
>We don't want AIs driving around with no one in command
this is exactly why they will be stuck at the point they are right now and won't take over tons of jobs like everyone is claiming. they are HELPERS, nothing more. they can't reason, they can't think, they can't discern, they don't have initiative. people will soon realize initiative is the trait of a human that they are really looking for. not performing simple tasks that have to be babysat on a constant basis.
longleaf4 t1_je05vwd wrote
I'd agree with you if we were just talking about gpt3. Gpt4 is able to interpret images and could probably suceed at biying tickets in your example. Not computer vision, interpretation and understanding.
Show it a picture of a man holding balloons and ask it what would happen if you cut the strings in the picture, and it can tell you the balloons will fly away.
Show it a disorganized line leading to a guy in a chair and tell it it needs to figure out where to buy tickets, it probably can.
speedywilfork t1_je07y85 wrote
no it can't. as i have told many people on here. i have been developing AI for 20 years. i am not speculating, i am EXPLAINING what is possible and what isn't. so far the GPT 4 demos are things that are expected, nothing impressive.
>and tell it it needs to figure out where to buy tickets, it probably can.
i want it to do it without me having to tell it. that is the point you are missing.
longleaf4 t1_je09b8h wrote
I've seen a lot of cynicism from the older crowd that has been trying to make real progress in the field. I've also seen examples from researchers that have explained why it shows advancement we never could have expected.
I wonder how much of it is healthy skepticism and how much is arrogance.
speedywilfork t1_je0b9uc wrote
>it shows advancement we never could have expected
this simply isn't true, everything AI is doing right now has been expected, or it should have been expected. anything that can be learned will be learned by AI. anything that has a finite outcome it will excel at. anything that doesn't have a finite outcome. it will struggle with. it isn't arrogance it is simply the way it works. it is like saying i am arrogant for claiming humans wont be able to fly like birds. nope, that's just reality
longleaf4 t1_je10fgu wrote
It seems like an inability to consider conflicting thoughts and the assumption that current knowledge is the pinnacle of understanding is a kind of arrogant way to view a developing field that no one person has complete insight to.
To me it seems kind of like saying Fusion power will never be possible. Eventually you're going to be wrong and it is more ofna question of when pur current understanding is broken.
The AI claim is that a breakthrough has occurred and only time can say if that is accurate or overly optimistic. Pretending breakthroughs can't happen isn't going to help anything though. It's just not a smart area to make a lot of assumptions about right now.
speedywilfork t1_je2rdub wrote
AI can't process abstract thoughts. it will never be able to, because there is no way to teach it, and we don't even know how humans can understand abstract thoughts. this is the basis for my conclusion. if it can't be programmed AI will never have that ability.
RedditFuelsMyDepress t1_jdvueyx wrote
Tbf some humans struggle with these things too.
acutelychronicpanic t1_jdtpxnz wrote
It definitely handles most abstractions I've thrown at it. Have you seen the examples in the paper?
speedywilfork t1_jdvbrrx wrote
i would venture to guess you didn't really present it with a true abstraction.
acutelychronicpanic t1_jdvg9r2 wrote
If you don't want to go look for yourself, give me an example of what you mean and I'll pass the results back to you.
speedywilfork t1_jdvnee1 wrote
here is the problem. "intelligence" has nothing to do with regurgitating facts. it has to do with communication or intent. so if i ask you "what do you think about coffee" you know i am asking about preference. not the origin of coffee, or random facts about coffee. so if you were to ask a human "what do you think about coffee" and they spit out some random facts. then you say "no thats not what i mean, i want to know if you like it" then they spit out more random facts. would you think to yourself. "damn this guy is really smart." i doubt it. you would likely think "whats wrong with this guy". so if something can't identify intent and return a cogent answer. it isnt "intelligent".
acutelychronicpanic t1_jdvog5q wrote
Current models like GPT4 specifically and purposefully avoid the appearance of having an opinion.
If you want to see it talk about the rich aroma and how coffee makes people feel, ask it to write a fictional conversation between two individuals.
It understands opinions, it just doesn't have one on coffee.
It'd be like me asking you how you "feel" about the meaning behind the equation 5x + 3y = 17
GPT4's strengths have little to do with spitting facts, and more to do with its ability to do reasoning and demonstrate understanding.
leaky_wand t1_jdvt5o9 wrote
5x + 3y = 17 is satisfying because there is one and only one answer using positive integers
speedywilfork t1_jdvue1k wrote
>GPT4's strengths have little to do with spitting facts, and more to do with its ability to do reasoning and demonstrate understanding.
I am not talking about an opinion, i am referring to intent. if it cant determine "intent" it can neither reason nor understand. Humans can easily understand intent, AI can't.
as an example if i go to a small town and I am hungry. i find a local and ask "i am not from around here and looking for a good place to eat" they understand the intent of my question isnt the taco bell on the corner. they understand i am asking about a local eatery that others call "good". An AI would just spit out a list of restaurants, but that wasnt the intent of the question. therefore it didnt understand.
acutelychronicpanic t1_jdxbhx8 wrote
It can infer intent pretty effectively. I'm not sure how to convince you of that, but I've been convinced by using it. It can take my garbled instructions and infer what is important to me using the context in which I ask it.
speedywilfork t1_jdxkn3c wrote
It doesnt "infer" it takes textual clues and makes a determination based on a finite vocabulary. it doesnt "know" anything it just matches textual patterns to a predetermined definition. it is really rather simplistic. The reason AI seems so smart is because humans do all of the abstract thinking for them. we boil it down to a concrete thought then we ask it a question. however if you were to tell an AI "go invent the next big thing" it is clueless, impotent, and worthless. AI will help humans achieve great things, but the AI can't achieve great things by itself. that is the important point. it won't do anything on its own, and that is the way people keep framing it.
I can disable an autonomous car by making a salt circle around it or using tiny soccer cones. this proves that the AI doesn't "know" what it is. how do i "explain" to an AI that some things can be driven over and others can't. there is no distinction between salt, painted line, and wall to an AI, all it sees is "obstacle".
acutelychronicpanic t1_jdxpq6j wrote
You paint all AI with the same brush. Many AI systems are as dumb as you say because they are specialized to only do a narrow range of tasks. GPT-4 is not that kind of AI.
AI pattern matching can do things that only AI and humans can do. Its not as simple as you imply. It doesn't just search some database and find a response to a similar question. There is no database if raw data inside it.
Please go see what people are already doing with these systems. Better yet, go to the sections on problem solving in the following paper and look at these examples: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712
Your assumptions and ideas of AI are years out of date.
speedywilfork t1_jdxyi6c wrote
why when i ask specific questions all i get is a straw man? this in itself proves that i am correct. I have been involved with AI development for 20 years. i understand every single model and type there is to be known. my ideas arent out of date. they are true. i am future looking here, and imagining a AI like Chat GPT to be paired with other systems. if i were to take into something like a coffee shop and ask it "is this a coffee shop?" it very likely would fail to get the answer correct. to an AI a coffee shop is a series of traits. it could not distinguish a coffee shop with a camera crew in it. from a fake coffee shop on a movie set. it couldnt distinguish an unbranded starbucks, from a unbranded mcdonalds. but you and i could, because a coffee shop is a concept, not a thing, it involves mood, feeling, and setting. and pattern recognition won't help it.
>AI pattern matching can do things that only AI and humans can do. Its not as simple as you imply. It doesn't just search some database and find a response to a similar question.
can a circle of small soccer cones disable an autonomous AI?
acutelychronicpanic t1_jdy378r wrote
20 years? You must be pretty well informed on recent developments then. I didn't go into detail because I assumed you've seen the demonstrations of GPT4.
If I can assume you've seen the GPT4 demos and read the paper, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how it can perform well on reasoning tasks its never seen before and reason about what would happen to a bundle of balloons in an image if the string was cut.
What about its test results? Many of those tests are not about memorization, but rather applying learned reasoning to novel situations. You can't memorize raw facts and pass an AP bio exam. You have to be able to use and apply methods to novel situations.
Idk. Maybe we are talking past each other here.
speedywilfork t1_je059or wrote
>I'd love to hear your thoughts on how it can perform well on reasoning tasks its never seen before and reason about what would happen to a bundle of balloons in an image if the string was cut.
I am sure you already know all of this, but It isnt really reasoning, i knows, i knows because it learned. anything that can be learned will eventually be learned by AI, anything and everything. So all of these tasks that appear to be impressive, to me, are just expected. So far AI hasnt done anything that is unexpected. but anything that has a finite outcome, like chess, Go, poker, starcraft, you name it, AI will beat a human, it won't even be close. but it doesnt "reason" it knows all of the possible moves that can ever be played. you show it a picture and ask it what is funny about it. it know that "atypical" things are considered "funny" by humans. so you show it a picture of the Eiffel tower wearing a hat, it can easily determine what is "funny". Even though it doesn't know what "funny" even means.
on the other hand tasks that are open ended and have no finite set of outcomes, like this...
https://news.yahoo.com/soldiers-outsmart-military-robot-acting-214509025.html
AI looks really, really, dumb. because in this scenario, real reasoning is required. a 5 year old child would be able to pick out these soldiers. these are the types of experiments i am interested in, because it will help us to know where AI can reasonably be applied and where it can't.
Why can't an AI pick out these soldiers and a 5 year old can? because an AI just sees objects, a 5 year old understands intent. a 5 year old understands that a person is intending to fool them, so they discern that it is a person inside a cardboard box. There is no way to teach an AI to recognize intent. because intent is an abstraction, and AI can understand abstractions
acutelychronicpanic t1_je0nzdb wrote
The current generation of AI does not use search to solve problems. That's not how neural networks work.
Go was considered impossible for AI to win for the reasons you suggested it is expected. There are too many possibilities for an AI to consider them all.
You misunderstand these systems fundamentally.
speedywilfork t1_je2qkbo wrote
>The current generation of AI does not use search to solve problems. That's not how neural networks work.
I never said they used search, it depends on the AI, but many still do use search with other protocols that augment it. they don't rely entirely on search but search is still a part of the algorithm.
>Go was considered impossible for AI to win for the reasons you suggested it is expected. There are too many possibilities for an AI to consider them all.
this is completely false. the original Go algorithm was taught on random games of Go, it had millions of moves built into its dataset. then it played itself millions of times. but the neural networks simply augmented the Monte Carlo Tree Search, it likely could not have won without search.
i don't literally mean it has a database of every potential move ever. i mean it builds this as it plays. however fundamentally it literally knows every move, because at any given point it knows all of the possible moves.
RedditFuelsMyDepress t1_jdvtk6c wrote
Not the best example. Why would an AI have an opinion on coffee if it can't even drink it?
speedywilfork t1_jdvwbt4 wrote
i am not talking about its opinion, i am talking about intent. i want it to know what the intention of my question is regardless of the question. i just gave this as example to someone else...
as an example if i go to a small town and I am hungry. i find a local and ask "i am not from around here and looking for a good place to eat" they understand the intent of my question isnt the taco bell on the corner. they understand i am asking about a local eatery that others call "good". An AI would just spit out a list of restaurants, but that wasnt the intent of the question. therefore it didnt understand.
If i point at the dog bed even my dog knows what i intend for it to do. it UNDERSTANDS, an AI wouldnt.
RedditFuelsMyDepress t1_jdvzdtf wrote
Well I tried asking the coffee question from ChatGPT and this is what it said:
"As an artificial intelligence language model, I do not have personal preferences or opinions. However, I can provide some general information about coffee.
Coffee is a popular beverage enjoyed by millions of people around the world. It is made by brewing roasted coffee beans, which contain caffeine, a natural stimulant that can help increase alertness and reduce fatigue. Coffee also contains antioxidants and other beneficial compounds that may offer health benefits when consumed in moderation.
However, it is important to note that excessive consumption of coffee can have negative effects on health, such as increasing the risk of insomnia, anxiety, and digestive issues. Additionally, some people may be more sensitive to the effects of caffeine than others, and may experience negative side effects even with moderate consumption.
Overall, whether or not to consume coffee is a personal choice that depends on an individual's preferences, health status, and caffeine tolerance. It is always a good idea to consult with a healthcare professional to determine if coffee consumption is right for you."
In that first paragraph it does acknowledge the intent of your question, but just says that it isn't able to answer it. The facts about coffee being spit out I believe is just part of the directives given to ChatGPT.
speedywilfork t1_jdw5jyl wrote
but that is the problem. it doesnt know intent, because intent is contextual. if i was standing in a coffee shop the question means one thing, on coffee plantation another, in a business conversation something totally different. so if you and i were discussing things to improve our business and i asked "what do you think about coffee" i am not asking about taste. AI can't distinguish these things.
RedditFuelsMyDepress t1_jdwpkfj wrote
>AI can't distinguish these things.
I'm not sure how true that is though. Even with GPT3, it would actually take into account the context of the whole conversation instead of just the most recent sentence when I asked something.
Hard to say how well it would handle itself in a real-world environment though since it's just a chat-bot atm.
IluvBsissa t1_jdtjxpg wrote
Doesn't matter if it understands or not, as long as it does the damn job.
crunchycrispy t1_jdudoni wrote
it’s actually very important, or else it will be unreliable and unpredictable in tons of hidden ways.
datsmamail12 t1_jduwxh7 wrote
If it's only limitation is physics and mathematics,just throw it a bunch of papers of that and you'd still wouldn't be impressed by it. But when this technology finally becomes self aware,you'll be the one that said I knew it from the beginning that it was AGI. Do you even comprehend how minor of a problem is not knowing how to do mathematics when you can write novelty,do multitasking, understand every question and answer properly,this is AGI that hasn't been programmed to know what maths are. Id you take a kid make it grow up in a jungle,never show it maths or physics,only show it language,you think that it won't have intelligence? No,it just means that it hasn't been trained on these specific topics..it's just as intelligent as you and I are. Well not me,I'm an idiot,but you people at least.
speedywilfork t1_jdvivi6 wrote
i am not impressed by it because everything it does, is expected. but it will never become self aware, because it has no ability to do so. self aware isnt something you learn, self aware is something you are. it is a trait, traits are assigned, not learned. even in evolution the environment is what assigns traits. AI have no environmental influence outside of their programmers. therefore the programmers would have to assign them the "self aware trait"
[deleted] t1_jdvmcm6 wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments