5 ms·

ChatGPT is pretty impressive but it’s obviously a far cry from real intelligence. At the same time, consider the resources required to train such a thing. How m

ChatGPT is pretty impressive but it’s obviously a far cry from real intelligence. At the same time, consider the resources required to train such a thing. How many dollars, how much time, how much RAM, how much power spent to make one of these things? If bigger truly is the answer (debatable), how much more expensive will it be to create/operate an AI that actually works? Is it worth it? Our own brains are already quite powerful. Maybe we could just try using them better and avoid the hackiness of fake intelligence.

bamboozled 4y ago
Would be nice if all that went into solving climate change, arguably ChatGPT could/could've been the answer, but I think most people knew it wouldn't be.
- melling 4y ago
  Don’t burn all that coal for decade after decade. It’s 20% of greenhouse emissions. If instead we are going to rely on miracles, maybe we should further develop AI to work on these miracles. It’s sort of irrelevant how good ChatGPT is, the entire benefit is that it will bring more R&D into the field.
  - sfpotter 4y ago
    It’s totally unclear a priori that more R&D in AI is good. There is already a ton of money being poured into it. If you’re in research, it is one of the few things you can be get money for at the moment, and it’s leading to a high degree of uniformity in research output. There’s no reason to expect that “more AI” = “solution to climate change”. “Look at this cool AI stuff, please give us money to solve climate change” is faulty reasoning (but good enough to get money now, thanks to how checked out people are). But I do agree that continuing the AI hype is the name of the game for places like OpenAI at this point, and how good ChatGPT actually is is beside the point.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Madmallard 4y ago
Our brains are prediction engines with decades of experience and millions of years of pretrained instincts to hone in on specific things better. We're better in a lot of ways, but that doesn't mean we can't work toward engineering things that are better in other ways. We've already done this with entire classes of problems (i.e. computable ones) with computers already. No reason we can't expand on this with our own models of prediction.
- wankle 4y ago
  Our brains are guided by our heart, soul and intuition. These are not scientifically quantifiable or definable and cannot become innate within AI, now or ever. This will always be the distinguishing factor in the artificial part of AI.
  - Madmallard 4y ago
    This is a statement of faith, not fact.
- sfpotter 4y ago
  I think the question is whether things like ChatGPT really are “better”. How do we define “better”? Who defines “better”? Does everyone have a say in what the definition is? Is the profit motive fully responsible here versus the benefit of society? As I allude to in my original post, is the cost/benefit really there? I don’t think any of these questions are being addressed in a reasonable way at the moment. It should be clear that your “engineering good” mentality is completely insufficient considering the scope of the problems we face today.
  - Madmallard 4y ago
    Speed matters
    - sfpotter 4y ago
      Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t! Completely depends on the context.

bamboozled 4y ago

Would be nice if all that went into solving climate change, arguably ChatGPT could/could've been the answer, but I think most people knew it wouldn't be.

melling 4y ago
Don’t burn all that coal for decade after decade. It’s 20% of greenhouse emissions. If instead we are going to rely on miracles, maybe we should further develop AI to work on these miracles. It’s sort of irrelevant how good ChatGPT is, the entire benefit is that it will bring more R&D into the field.
- sfpotter 4y ago
  It’s totally unclear a priori that more R&D in AI is good. There is already a ton of money being poured into it. If you’re in research, it is one of the few things you can be get money for at the moment, and it’s leading to a high degree of uniformity in research output. There’s no reason to expect that “more AI” = “solution to climate change”. “Look at this cool AI stuff, please give us money to solve climate change” is faulty reasoning (but good enough to get money now, thanks to how checked out people are). But I do agree that continuing the AI hype is the name of the game for places like OpenAI at this point, and how good ChatGPT actually is is beside the point.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Madmallard 4y ago

Our brains are prediction engines with decades of experience and millions of years of pretrained instincts to hone in on specific things better. We're better in a lot of ways, but that doesn't mean we can't work toward engineering things that are better in other ways. We've already done this with entire classes of problems (i.e. computable ones) with computers already. No reason we can't expand on this with our own models of prediction.

wankle 4y ago
Our brains are guided by our heart, soul and intuition. These are not scientifically quantifiable or definable and cannot become innate within AI, now or ever. This will always be the distinguishing factor in the artificial part of AI.
- Madmallard 4y ago
  This is a statement of faith, not fact.
sfpotter 4y ago
I think the question is whether things like ChatGPT really are “better”. How do we define “better”? Who defines “better”? Does everyone have a say in what the definition is? Is the profit motive fully responsible here versus the benefit of society? As I allude to in my original post, is the cost/benefit really there? I don’t think any of these questions are being addressed in a reasonable way at the moment. It should be clear that your “engineering good” mentality is completely insufficient considering the scope of the problems we face today.
- Madmallard 4y ago
  Speed matters
  - sfpotter 4y ago
    Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t! Completely depends on the context.