3 ms·

It is good that someone formulated this argument, but I have to say that the conclusion should be obvious to anyone that is not totally blinded by philosophical

by golol 4y ago

It is good that someone formulated this argument, but I have to say that the conclusion should be obvious to anyone that is not totally blinded by philosophical beliefs about intelligence and algorithms, as opposed to looking at the real evidence of the capabilities of real AI. Pick any human. I claim there exists some subject that ChatGPT has a better understanding of than this human, based on a surface-level evaluation.

quotemstr 4y ago
Right. One of the most remarkable side effects of the recent advances in AI has been a swath of the tech industry bleating desperately in unison that whatever an ML model might do, it isn't "real" intelligence because humans are magic and, since tensors don't have that magic, AI can't "really" think.
- golol 4y ago
  In fact, it is quite hilarious that in the last 5 years the go-to criticism of state-of-the art AI has switched from "It can only do one specfic thing very well!" to "It can't do any specific thing very well!". We have really struck a goldmine with unsupervised LLMs. While before the range of forms of intelligence we could cover only contained high performance "specific" intelligence, we now finally have an outpost in low performance "general" intelligence. All we have to do is perform a pincer movement! Any data is tokens, any models can be interfaced. I predict models will be trained on DNS-Server data streams.
throw2500 4y ago
> Pick any human. I claim there exists some subject that ChatGPT has a better understanding of than this human, based on a surface-level evaluation. Isn't that a low bar, though? For any human, you can find some subject that that human knows next to nothing about. It's kind of like saying "Google is smarter than humanity because for any human, I can find some fact that a Google search will reveal that that human doesn't know".
- golol 4y ago
  Maybe it is a low-bar, that's subjective. But I do mean understanding, not just knowing some facts. You could say that google was the point where we could say "Pick any human. I claim there exists some subjects that Google has more factual knowledge of than this human, based on a pure reproduction based evaluation." With ChatGPT I claim that it beats humans in real "understanding" of at least some subject
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Your claim is trivially disprovable. Ask ChatGPT over for a family dinner.
- golol 4y ago
  How so? ChatGPT understands Chemistry better than me and I attend the family dinner.

by golol 4y ago

quotemstr 4y ago

Right. One of the most remarkable side effects of the recent advances in AI has been a swath of the tech industry bleating desperately in unison that whatever an ML model might do, it isn't "real" intelligence because humans are magic and, since tensors don't have that magic, AI can't "really" think.

golol 4y ago
In fact, it is quite hilarious that in the last 5 years the go-to criticism of state-of-the art AI has switched from "It can only do one specfic thing very well!" to "It can't do any specific thing very well!". We have really struck a goldmine with unsupervised LLMs. While before the range of forms of intelligence we could cover only contained high performance "specific" intelligence, we now finally have an outpost in low performance "general" intelligence. All we have to do is perform a pincer movement! Any data is tokens, any models can be interfaced. I predict models will be trained on DNS-Server data streams.

throw2500 4y ago

> Pick any human. I claim there exists some subject that ChatGPT has a better understanding of than this human, based on a surface-level evaluation. Isn't that a low bar, though? For any human, you can find some subject that that human knows next to nothing about. It's kind of like saying "Google is smarter than humanity because for any human, I can find some fact that a Google search will reveal that that human doesn't know".

golol 4y ago
Maybe it is a low-bar, that's subjective. But I do mean understanding, not just knowing some facts. You could say that google was the point where we could say "Pick any human. I claim there exists some subjects that Google has more factual knowledge of than this human, based on a pure reproduction based evaluation." With ChatGPT I claim that it beats humans in real "understanding" of at least some subject

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

Your claim is trivially disprovable. Ask ChatGPT over for a family dinner.

golol 4y ago
How so? ChatGPT understands Chemistry better than me and I attend the family dinner.