3 ms·
> The susceptibility of these systems to completely failing on weird inputs shows that it's a kind of massive memorization going on here, rather than true under
by zarzavat 5y ago
> The susceptibility of these systems to completely failing on weird inputs shows that it's a kind of massive memorization going on here, rather than true understanding.
Isn’t that a truism? “Understanding” is equivalent to AGI. Nobody would argue that we have AGI yet, but the intelligence-sans-understanding is somewhat similar to animal intelligence, which was the precursor to human intelligence. What should scare us is that we know that animal to human was not a difficult step evolutionarily.
- stephc_int13 5y ago>What should scare us is that we know that animal to human was not a difficult step evolutionarily. Do we know that? If that is not difficult, why is it so rare?
- CTmystery 5y agoPerhaps most of us in this forum have only the most basic exposure to biology? I say this because with any serious exposure you can't help but be dumbfounded by the complexity and "creativity" of nature. Everything is amazing! The fact that the pieces fit together is just wild and scary and awesome. To think that gradient descent and backprop will give us general intelligence, one of the great mysteries of nature, is incredibly hubristic, IMO. It's statistical inference at scale, with some heuristics up/downstream. It's a cool and useful tool for sure!