4 ms·
It's not about the semantics of the sentence he said. This is obvious. He is pointing out a difference in nature of the attributes/properties of a human and a h
by geraneum 4y ago
It's not about the semantics of the sentence he said. This is obvious. He is pointing out a difference in nature of the attributes/properties of a human and a human creation. Not about something being more or less dangerous. He is trying to tell the resporter, or perhapes the reader, that they're asking the wrong question.
- dist-epoch 4y agoFrom article: > This idea of surpassing human ability is silly because it’s made of human abilities At some point in history we were just "chimp abilities", so the argument would become "it's silly to imagine that something made of chimp abilities could surpass chimp abilities".
- pixl97 4y agoI'm with you on this. People in these chains seem to be looking at all the wrong metrics. Single-mode LLMs are made of human abilities, but we're already going to multi-modal, though with what I would call rather limited interconnections. What does a LLM that takes language and mixes that with sensor data from the real world? You're no longer talking about human abilities, you're going beyond that.
- geraneum 4y agoThis thread reminds me of that Big Bang Theory episode with the Super Man argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R5w4Qz6pVk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R5w4Qz6pVk I don't want to imply anything, just a moment of having fun. edit: wording