4 ms·

> Just keep on telling yourself that… OK, have it do something novel that's not a mashup of its training data or the prompts you feed it.

autoexec 4y ago
The AI we have has blown away the Turing test, so all we're left with are arguments over what it means to "mashup training data". We need a way to tell the difference between something a human wrote by "mashing up" its "training data" and a something a computer wrote doing the same thing.
- lyu07282 4y ago
  I don't think current AI has blown away the Turing test yet, depending on what you mean by the Turning test specifically I suppose. But I'm sympathetic to your overall sentiment. > We need a way to tell the difference between something a human wrote by "mashing up" it's "training data" and a something a computer wrote doing the same thing. I don't think people really even think that way, they would be confused by the question. This is more of a niche subject of AI research and scifi, these concepts are not understood at all by normal people, normal people say things like: Why do we need to tell the difference? We know if something is being generated by a machine unless you hide that fact to cheat on your homework or something. A machine is made by humans, using some wires or a bunch of if then else programming or something, its always going to be different to a human of course, humans are sentient, machines are not. If you tell them about the control problem they just tell you to pull the plug if it does start acting weird. This stuff is very challenging to communicate to people who aren't already reading lesswrong.
  - Vecr 4y ago
    Reading lesswrong? I've never read lesswrong and I've have a general awareness of the problem for a really long time. I guess AI boxing (and why it actually does not work) somehow got into physical books I read some time around 2010 or earlier. Even if you watched 2001 you might get thinking about other ways "just pulling the plug" won't work. Let alone stuff like Colossus: The Forbin Project.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > The AI we have has blown away the Turing test 1. No, it hasn't. 2. The Turing Test is actually not a great test of machine intelligence.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dr_dshiv 4y ago
What’s an example of something you’d consider novel? I’m very good at creative brainstorming—but I have to say, this tool is extremely good at creative, insightful brainstorming. Just for a recent example, I asked it anticipate backlash to ChatGPT—to which it gave ideas I’d not considered—how could that be in it’s training data? It’s ok to say “only conscious beings can be truly intelligent and machines can never be.” But apart from this perspective , I don’t understand the reluctance to declare this machine to be generally intelligent. It is an amazing accomplishment and I think should be recognized as such. Besides, the exponential growth in general intelligence is likely to continue for quite some time.
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  > to which it gave ideas I’d not considered—how could that be in it’s training data? This is kind if like saying "I typed a question I know the answer to into a search engine and it showed me webpages in the results where the answer was something I hadn't considered before" Obviously it's in the training model because someone else aside from you did think of it before.
  - dr_dshiv 4y ago
    But obviously it’s training data doesn’t include backlash against chatGPT!
    - bluefirebrand 4y ago
      Maybe not the first set of training data, but surely by now it does. Or maybe it includes backlash against ML models, and ChatGPT "knows" that it is one of those. There is no magic here.
      - dr_dshiv 4y ago
        The magic could be in the ability of GPT to produce and manipulate high level abstractions.

autoexec 4y ago

The AI we have has blown away the Turing test, so all we're left with are arguments over what it means to "mashup training data". We need a way to tell the difference between something a human wrote by "mashing up" its "training data" and a something a computer wrote doing the same thing.

lyu07282 4y ago
I don't think current AI has blown away the Turing test yet, depending on what you mean by the Turning test specifically I suppose. But I'm sympathetic to your overall sentiment. > We need a way to tell the difference between something a human wrote by "mashing up" it's "training data" and a something a computer wrote doing the same thing. I don't think people really even think that way, they would be confused by the question. This is more of a niche subject of AI research and scifi, these concepts are not understood at all by normal people, normal people say things like: Why do we need to tell the difference? We know if something is being generated by a machine unless you hide that fact to cheat on your homework or something. A machine is made by humans, using some wires or a bunch of if then else programming or something, its always going to be different to a human of course, humans are sentient, machines are not. If you tell them about the control problem they just tell you to pull the plug if it does start acting weird. This stuff is very challenging to communicate to people who aren't already reading lesswrong.
- Vecr 4y ago
  Reading lesswrong? I've never read lesswrong and I've have a general awareness of the problem for a really long time. I guess AI boxing (and why it actually does not work) somehow got into physical books I read some time around 2010 or earlier. Even if you watched 2001 you might get thinking about other ways "just pulling the plug" won't work. Let alone stuff like Colossus: The Forbin Project.
tablespoon 4y ago
> The AI we have has blown away the Turing test 1. No, it hasn't. 2. The Turing Test is actually not a great test of machine intelligence.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dr_dshiv 4y ago

What’s an example of something you’d consider novel? I’m very good at creative brainstorming—but I have to say, this tool is extremely good at creative, insightful brainstorming. Just for a recent example, I asked it anticipate backlash to ChatGPT—to which it gave ideas I’d not considered—how could that be in it’s training data? It’s ok to say “only conscious beings can be truly intelligent and machines can never be.” But apart from this perspective , I don’t understand the reluctance to declare this machine to be generally intelligent. It is an amazing accomplishment and I think should be recognized as such. Besides, the exponential growth in general intelligence is likely to continue for quite some time.

bluefirebrand 4y ago
> to which it gave ideas I’d not considered—how could that be in it’s training data? This is kind if like saying "I typed a question I know the answer to into a search engine and it showed me webpages in the results where the answer was something I hadn't considered before" Obviously it's in the training model because someone else aside from you did think of it before.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  But obviously it’s training data doesn’t include backlash against chatGPT!
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    Maybe not the first set of training data, but surely by now it does. Or maybe it includes backlash against ML models, and ChatGPT "knows" that it is one of those. There is no magic here.
    - dr_dshiv 4y ago
      The magic could be in the ability of GPT to produce and manipulate high level abstractions.