6 ms·

> The "I" in AI is just complete bullshit and I can't understand why so many people are in a awe I agree. And the worst thing is that the bullshit hype comes

> The "I" in AI is just complete bullshit and I can't understand why so many people are in a awe I agree. And the worst thing is that the bullshit hype comes round every decade or so, and people run around like headless chickens insisting that "this time its different", and "this time its the REAL THING". As you say, first(ish) there was ELIZA. Than this that and everything else. Then Autonomy and all that dot-com era jazz. Now with compute becoming more powerful and more compact, any man and his dog can stuff some AI bullshit where it doesn't belong. I have seen comments below on this thread where people talk about "well, it's closing the gap". The thing you have to understand is that the gap will always exist. Ultimately you will always be asking a computer to do something. And computers are dumb. They are and will always be beholden to the humans that program them and the information that you feed them. The human will always have the upper hand at any tasks that require actual intelligence (i.e. thoughtful reasoning, adapting to rapidly changing events etc.).

joyeuse6701 4y ago
This is not always true, see Chess.
- vinnydiehl 4y ago
  AlphaGo as well. A few years back people were saying AI could never come close to beating a human at Go.
pixl97 4y ago
Man, if this were 1800 you'd be stating that man would never fly and the horse would never be supplanted by the engine. I honestly don't believe you have any scientific or rational reasoning for the point you are attempting to make in your post, because if you were you'd be stating that animal intelligence is magical.
- traceroute66 4y ago
  > Man, if this were 1800 you'd be stating that man would never fly and the horse would never be supplanted by the engine. I'm sorry, what sort of bullshit argument is that ? Flight and engines are both natural evolution using natural physics and mechanics. Artificial Intelligence is nothing but a square-peg-round-hole, when you have a sledgehammer everything looks like a nut scenario.
  - nightski 4y ago
    They are natural to you maybe with hindsight? Powered flight was most definitely not considered natural at the time. In fact, most attempts at flight were trying to mimic birds at first.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Flight and engines are natural evolution but intelligence is magic? Nature accomplished intelligence via random walk and it is a complicated mess because of it. To think that we cannot accomplish at least parts of intelligence is insane to me.
lordfrito 4y ago
> And the worst thing is that the bullshit hype comes round every decade or so, and people run around like headless chickens insisting that "this time its different", and "this time its the REAL THING". This. To answer the OPs question, this is what I'm fatigued about. I'm glad we're making progress. It's a hell of a parlor trick. But the hype around it is astounding considering how often it's answers are completely wrong. People think computers are magic boxes, and so we must be just a few lever pulls away from making it correct all the time. Or maybe my problem is that I've overestimated the average human's intelligence. If you can't tell ChatGPT apart from a good con-man, can we consider the Turing test passed? It's likely time for a redefinition of the Turing test. Instead of AI making machines smarter, it seems that computers are making humans dumber. Perhaps the AI revolution is about dropping the level of average human intelligence to match the level of a computer. A mental race to the bottom? I'm reminded of the old Rod Serling quote: We're developing a new citizenry. One that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won't be able to think.
- falcor84 4y ago
  I'm having a really hard time following your argument. But absolutely agree we need to redefine the Turing test. Only problem is that I can no longer come up with any reasonable time-limited cognitive task that next year's AI would fail at, but a "typical human" would pass.
  - lordfrito 4y ago
    "Intelligence" is probably too nebulous a term for what it is we're trying to build. Like "pornography", its hard to rigidly define, but you know it when you see it. I think "human level intelligence" is an emergent phenomenon arising from a variety of smaller cognitive subsystems working together to solve a problem. It does seem that ChatGPT and similar models have at least partially automated one of the subsystems in this model. Still, it can't reason, doesn't know it's wrong, and can't lie because it doesn't understand what a lie is. So it has a long way to go. But it's still real progress in the sense that it's allowing us to better see the dividing lines between the subsystems that make up general intelligence. I think that we'll need to build a better systems level model of what general intelligence is and the pieces it's built out of. With a better defined model, we can come up with better tests for each subsystem. These tests will replace the Turing test.

joyeuse6701 4y ago

This is not always true, see Chess.

vinnydiehl 4y ago
AlphaGo as well. A few years back people were saying AI could never come close to beating a human at Go.

pixl97 4y ago

Man, if this were 1800 you'd be stating that man would never fly and the horse would never be supplanted by the engine. I honestly don't believe you have any scientific or rational reasoning for the point you are attempting to make in your post, because if you were you'd be stating that animal intelligence is magical.

traceroute66 4y ago
> Man, if this were 1800 you'd be stating that man would never fly and the horse would never be supplanted by the engine. I'm sorry, what sort of bullshit argument is that ? Flight and engines are both natural evolution using natural physics and mechanics. Artificial Intelligence is nothing but a square-peg-round-hole, when you have a sledgehammer everything looks like a nut scenario.
- nightski 4y ago
  They are natural to you maybe with hindsight? Powered flight was most definitely not considered natural at the time. In fact, most attempts at flight were trying to mimic birds at first.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Flight and engines are natural evolution but intelligence is magic? Nature accomplished intelligence via random walk and it is a complicated mess because of it. To think that we cannot accomplish at least parts of intelligence is insane to me.

lordfrito 4y ago

> And the worst thing is that the bullshit hype comes round every decade or so, and people run around like headless chickens insisting that "this time its different", and "this time its the REAL THING". This. To answer the OPs question, this is what I'm fatigued about. I'm glad we're making progress. It's a hell of a parlor trick. But the hype around it is astounding considering how often it's answers are completely wrong. People think computers are magic boxes, and so we must be just a few lever pulls away from making it correct all the time. Or maybe my problem is that I've overestimated the average human's intelligence. If you can't tell ChatGPT apart from a good con-man, can we consider the Turing test passed? It's likely time for a redefinition of the Turing test. Instead of AI making machines smarter, it seems that computers are making humans dumber. Perhaps the AI revolution is about dropping the level of average human intelligence to match the level of a computer. A mental race to the bottom? I'm reminded of the old Rod Serling quote: We're developing a new citizenry. One that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won't be able to think.

falcor84 4y ago
I'm having a really hard time following your argument. But absolutely agree we need to redefine the Turing test. Only problem is that I can no longer come up with any reasonable time-limited cognitive task that next year's AI would fail at, but a "typical human" would pass.
- lordfrito 4y ago
  "Intelligence" is probably too nebulous a term for what it is we're trying to build. Like "pornography", its hard to rigidly define, but you know it when you see it. I think "human level intelligence" is an emergent phenomenon arising from a variety of smaller cognitive subsystems working together to solve a problem. It does seem that ChatGPT and similar models have at least partially automated one of the subsystems in this model. Still, it can't reason, doesn't know it's wrong, and can't lie because it doesn't understand what a lie is. So it has a long way to go. But it's still real progress in the sense that it's allowing us to better see the dividing lines between the subsystems that make up general intelligence. I think that we'll need to build a better systems level model of what general intelligence is and the pieces it's built out of. With a better defined model, we can come up with better tests for each subsystem. These tests will replace the Turing test.