7 ms·

Mislabeling ML bots as "Artificial Intelligence" when they aren't is a huge part of the problem. There's no intelligence in them. It's basically a sophisticate

Mislabeling ML bots as "Artificial Intelligence" when they aren't is a huge part of the problem. There's no intelligence in them. It's basically a sophisticated madlib engine. There's no creativity or genuinely new things coming out of them. It's just stringing words together: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/01/wolframalpha-as-the-way-to-bring-computational-knowledge-superpowers-to-chatgpt/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/01/wolframalpha-as-... as opposed to having a thought, and then finding a way to put it into words.

stevenhuang 4y ago
Your take reminds of the below meme, which perfectly captures the developing situation as we get a better sense of LLM capabilities. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/112bfxu/i_dont_get_why_people_are_so_impressed/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/112bfxu/i_dont_get...
- pixl97 4y ago
  No way we'll become prostitutes, someone will jam GPT in a Cherry 2000 model.
visarga 4y ago
You are rightly noticing that something is missing. The language model is bound to the same ideas it was trained on. But they can guide experiments, and experimentation is the one source of learning other than language. Humans, by virtue of having bodies and being embedded in a complex environment, can already experiment and learn from outcomes, that's how we discovered everything. Large language models are like brains in a vat hooked to media, with no experiences of their own. But they could have, there's no reason not to. Even the large number of human-chatBot interactions can form a corpus of experience built by human-AI cooperation. Next version of Bing will have extensive knowledge of interacting with humans as an AI bot, something that didn't exist before, each reaction from a human can be interpreted as a positive or negative reward. By offering its services for free, "AI" is creating data specifically tailored to improve its chat abilities, also relying on users to do it. We're like a hundred million parents to an AI child. It will learn fast, its experience accumulates at great speed. I hope we get open source datasets of chat interaction. We should develop an extension to log chats as training examples for open models.
kzrdude 4y ago
It would be interesting if it could demonstrate that 1) it can speak multiple languages 2) it has mastery of the same knowledge in all languages, i.e. that it has a model of knowledge that's transferrable to be expressed in any language, much like how people are.
naasking 4y ago
> There's no intelligence in them. Debatable. We don't have a formal model of intelligence, but it certainly exhibits some of the hallmarks of intelligence. > It's basically a sophisticated madlib engine. There's no creativity or genuinely new things coming out of them That's just wrong. If it's outputs weren't novel it would basically be plagiarizing, but that just isn't the case. Also left unproven is that humans aren't themselves sophisticated madlib engines.
- danaris 4y ago
  > it certainly exhibits some of the hallmarks of intelligence. That is because we have specifically engineered them to simulate those hallmarks. Like, that was the whole purpose of the endeavour: build something that is not intelligent (because we cannot do that yet), but which "sounds" intelligent enough when you talk to it.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > That is because we have specifically engineered them to simulate those hallmarks. Yes, but your assertion that this is not itself intelligence is based on the assumption that a simulation of intelligence is not itself intelligence. Intelligence is a certain kind of manipulation of information. Simulation of intelligence is a certain kind of manipulation of information. These may or may not be equivalent. Whether they are only time will tell, but we wary of making overly strong assumptions given we don't really understand intelligence.
    - danaris 4y ago
      I think you may be right that a simulation of intelligence—in full—either is intelligence, or is so indistinguishable it becomes a purely philosophical question. However, I do not believe the same is true as a simulation of limited, superficial hallmarks of intelligence. That is what, based on my understanding of the concepts underlying ChatGPT and other LLMs, I believe them to be.
      - 4y ago
electrondood 4y ago
Pedantically, ML is a subset of AI, so it is technically AI.

stevenhuang 4y ago

Your take reminds of the below meme, which perfectly captures the developing situation as we get a better sense of LLM capabilities. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/112bfxu/i_dont_get_why_people_are_so_impressed/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/112bfxu/i_dont_get...

pixl97 4y ago
No way we'll become prostitutes, someone will jam GPT in a Cherry 2000 model.

visarga 4y ago

You are rightly noticing that something is missing. The language model is bound to the same ideas it was trained on. But they can guide experiments, and experimentation is the one source of learning other than language. Humans, by virtue of having bodies and being embedded in a complex environment, can already experiment and learn from outcomes, that's how we discovered everything. Large language models are like brains in a vat hooked to media, with no experiences of their own. But they could have, there's no reason not to. Even the large number of human-chatBot interactions can form a corpus of experience built by human-AI cooperation. Next version of Bing will have extensive knowledge of interacting with humans as an AI bot, something that didn't exist before, each reaction from a human can be interpreted as a positive or negative reward. By offering its services for free, "AI" is creating data specifically tailored to improve its chat abilities, also relying on users to do it. We're like a hundred million parents to an AI child. It will learn fast, its experience accumulates at great speed. I hope we get open source datasets of chat interaction. We should develop an extension to log chats as training examples for open models.

kzrdude 4y ago

It would be interesting if it could demonstrate that 1) it can speak multiple languages 2) it has mastery of the same knowledge in all languages, i.e. that it has a model of knowledge that's transferrable to be expressed in any language, much like how people are.

naasking 4y ago

> There's no intelligence in them. Debatable. We don't have a formal model of intelligence, but it certainly exhibits some of the hallmarks of intelligence. > It's basically a sophisticated madlib engine. There's no creativity or genuinely new things coming out of them That's just wrong. If it's outputs weren't novel it would basically be plagiarizing, but that just isn't the case. Also left unproven is that humans aren't themselves sophisticated madlib engines.

danaris 4y ago
> it certainly exhibits some of the hallmarks of intelligence. That is because we have specifically engineered them to simulate those hallmarks. Like, that was the whole purpose of the endeavour: build something that is not intelligent (because we cannot do that yet), but which "sounds" intelligent enough when you talk to it.
- naasking 4y ago
  > That is because we have specifically engineered them to simulate those hallmarks. Yes, but your assertion that this is not itself intelligence is based on the assumption that a simulation of intelligence is not itself intelligence. Intelligence is a certain kind of manipulation of information. Simulation of intelligence is a certain kind of manipulation of information. These may or may not be equivalent. Whether they are only time will tell, but we wary of making overly strong assumptions given we don't really understand intelligence.
  - danaris 4y ago
    I think you may be right that a simulation of intelligence—in full—either is intelligence, or is so indistinguishable it becomes a purely philosophical question. However, I do not believe the same is true as a simulation of limited, superficial hallmarks of intelligence. That is what, based on my understanding of the concepts underlying ChatGPT and other LLMs, I believe them to be.
    - 4y ago

electrondood 4y ago

Pedantically, ML is a subset of AI, so it is technically AI.