3 ms·
> I think this is moving the goal post. No it isn't - his entire argument is that LLM != Humans, just because LLM can do some human like thinhgs. Pointing out
by moonchrome 4y ago
> I think this is moving the goal post.
No it isn't - his entire argument is that LLM != Humans, just because LLM can do some human like thinhgs. Pointing out the differences isn't moving the goalposts - it's proving the point.
> Pretty soon we'll have to accept that we are just biological machines
Sounds strawmanish, humans != LLM doesn't mean humans == magic.
> and how we respond to our environment is pre-determined
What does this even mean ? Even these models are stochastic.
- FrustratedMonky 4y agoSeems like because LLM is the latest hot topic, that all AI=Human arguments right now are about LLM. Think that is exactly moving the goal post. "Latest greatest AI thing comes out, everyone 'but because of xyz that isn't human". The argument isn't about LLM, its about ALL related AI/Machine learning techniques. They are all chipping away at one aspect or another, and eventually they'll all be put together and completely mimic a human, and nobody will have any ground to stand on to argue that humans have any special difference that keeps them unique.
- moonchrome 4y agoChatGPT/LLM is driving a lot of hype and is explicitly called out in root comment. Arguments like parent reply specifically argue against that. You seem to be strawmaning that and bringing up almost tautological "once we advance enough towards AGI we will have human level intelligence". ChatGPT/LLM has a lot of hype - they are fundamentally not human level intelligence.