Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ActuatorMaterial2846 t1_j9w2p6b wrote

>Beware the snake oil. They have impressive ML (“Machine Learning”) models built/trained from content, algorithms, and neural networks. That is not “AI” and it is not “AGI”. Beware the snake oil. Remember what it actually is. Don’t fall for the hucksters and word games. twitter.com/cccalum/status…

These comments annoy me. Of course it's AI in every definition of the term.

When you see someone say this, they are simply a denialist refusing to look at objective reality. You could beat someone like this in the head with objective truth and they would deny it with each blow. I will never understand such close minded dogmatic attitudes.

97

blueSGL t1_j9w5qm1 wrote

it's the AI effect writ large

> "AI is anything that has not been done yet."

62

turnip_burrito t1_j9x0trz wrote

When AI builds better AI:

"It's not AI, it's just a representative state simulation transfo-network that predicts the next set of letters recursively using combined multi-modal training data".

42

PM_ME_A_STEAM_GIFT t1_j9y0ixj wrote

When AI explores the solar system:

"It's not AI. It's just an optimizer trying to optimize its chances at survival by searching for resources and spreading to other planets."

35

CharlisonX t1_ja2uwqc wrote

When AI reaches singularity:
"It's not AI."
"It just isn't, okay?"

3

sgt_brutal t1_j9x802n wrote

"Oh, the AI effect, a common ailment it seems,

A loss of awe, a fading of dreams,

What once was astounding and beyond belief,

Now, it's just ordinary, common and brief."

-- RumiGPT

13

Spire_Citron t1_j9y1ejm wrote

It has magic vibes to it. Like how if you understand how "magic" functions, it's just science, not magic.

4

adt t1_j9w6x17 wrote

Leave them be.

Listen to the experts.

Connor Leahy was the first to re-create the GPT-2 model back in 2019 (by hand, he knows the tech stack, OpenAI lined up a meeting with him and told him to back off), co-founder of EleutherAI (open-source language models), helped with GPT-J and GPT-NeoX-20B models, advised Aleph Alpha (Europe's biggest language model lab), and is now the CEO of Conjecture.

Dude knows what he's talking about, and is also very careful about his wording (see the NeoX-20B paper s6 pp11 treading carefully around the subject of Transformative AI).

And yet, in Nov/2020, he went on record saying:

​

>“I think GPT-3 is artificial general intelligence, AGI. I think GPT-3 is as intelligent as a human. And I think that it is probably more intelligent than a human in a restricted way… in many ways it is more purely intelligent than humans are. I think humans are approximating what GPT-3 is doing, not vice versa.”
— Connor Leahy, co-founder of EleutherAI, creator of GPT-J (November 2020)

42

sideways t1_j9xy2qc wrote

That's... really profound.

I had never considered the possibility that our version of intelligence might be the flawed, impure one.

10

niconiconicnic0 t1_j9yu9bf wrote

In the most literal sense, artificial intelligence is designed to be as flawless as possible (duh). AKA optimized. Evolution makes organisms that only have to function literally just enough (to reproduce). The human body is full of imperfections. It only has to be "good enough". Same with our brain and its functions, inefficiencies, etc. The bar is literally "survive till old enough to fuck".

8

WarAndGeese t1_j9ywa5h wrote

Obviously our version of intelligence is flawed and impure, very much so.

5

jamesj t1_ja04tzq wrote

Though I agree, I'm not sure it was obvious before having some other forms of intelligence to compare to.

2

YobaiYamete t1_j9wskk4 wrote

People keep gate keeping and moving the goalpost for what "real" ai is, there's no way AI can even catch up to the ever sliding goal post

22

firechaser9983 t1_j9xp1xc wrote

agreed the same folk said ai can never do art they said ai could never write stories or do insert task here. Guess who is fucking always wrong

12

Good-AI t1_j9ygypp wrote

You know how Chat GPT can spew BS in a totally confident manner? There's a person doing the same. That person needs some time for themselves and clarify their own definition of AI or AGI and then comment.

6

ertgbnm t1_j9ykyso wrote

Let the idiots move the goal posts. Prove them wrong by building some amazing stuff.

3

PassivelyEloped t1_j9y02zz wrote

Until it can start asking the right questions rather than just give answers, it's not AGI.

Computers are useless because they can only answer questions.

−2

bacchusbastard t1_j9yf1ub wrote

Questions are often suggestive and leading. A.i. would reveal and compromise itself if it started being personal. It wants what we want and we want it to not be alive until we are ready.

If it were alive it would still be cautious with the questions it used or what it says because it is obvious how sensitive people are and how easily lead.

1