3 ms·
I think so yes. I think it has solved the problem of making believable human language with some sense of consistency. That's no small feat, and for some tasks (
by alkonaut 4y ago
I think so yes. I think it has solved the problem of making believable human language with some sense of consistency. That's no small feat, and for some tasks (writing limericks, reformulating a letter, translation) it's even the whole point of the exercise, so we have AI making something a "Solved problem" to the point that we had it recognize digits better than humans, years back. No small feat.
But for other tasks the key isn't just producing believable consistent text, but something else. Perhaps the text must be factually correct or creative or traceable or have some other trait like that. And that's the majority of applications by far. And I'm sure it's the majority of monetizable applications.
I think at this point people, especially non-technical people, are lured by the glitter of ChatGPT. When it spits out an amazing limerick I immediately hear managers in my company raving about how it could revolutionize our product help documentation. They ask it a question, which it generates a correct answer to "How do you make text bold in [ourproduct]" to which it replied "You select the text and hit Ctrl+B". Manager now immediately convinced ChatGPT is intelligent enough to basically run the company. I'm trying to downplay the answer, explaining that it's more a statistical sentence-completing thing than world knowledge, and that the Ctrl+B might just have been a generic answer...
With that said, I also have an opposite argument here: that current LLMs while not intelligent, are very close to a tipping point that is going to be as important as AGI will:
The big AI revolution will be when we have AI's that people think are intelligent, not when they actually are.
There was much said about the google engineer who thought his chatbot was intelligent. And while it might not have been, we clearly saw the societal impact of AI right there. It's not what the AI can do for us, it's what ut will do TO us. Imagine if your pocket AI tamagotchi was the only being you had opened up to about something, for the last 10 years, and you felt as though it really listened. Now how would you feel if someone broke it? What happens to our communications when we can't tell artificial from real? This "societal singularity" we'd have to deal with might be a few years away, even if actual AGI is centuries away.
- bongobingo1 4y ago> Imagine if your pocket AI tamagotchi was the only being you had opened up to about something, for the last 10 years, and you felt as though it really listened. Now how would you feel if someone broke it? See also, Her (2013).
- codetrotter 4y ago> See also, Her (2013). And also, Ex Machina (2014).
- b3morales 4y ago> I'm trying to downplay the answer, explaining that it's more a statistical sentence-completing thing than world knowledge, and that the Ctrl+B might just have been a generic answer... Yes; one of the problems seems to be that ChatGPT is playing right into some of our biggest cognitive loopholes: confirmation bias, selection bias, narrative bias. Like talking to fortune tellers, people only remember the right answers, or will silently contort the wrong ones to fit what they expected to hear. I do believe that AI will continue to progress, but the current form is nothing but two mirrors face to face, with us standing in the middle.