4 ms·

"Microsoft researchers claim <Microsoft product> is ..."

• HervalFreire 4y ago
  Who knows. Could be genuine could be fake. I'm more inclined to say genuine given how minimal the incentive is to say it's agi. There's not much material gain in making that claim and its actually more prone to trigger disdain (of which yourself is a shining example).
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• lonelyasacloud 4y ago
  Has been blessed through _official_ MS channels and carries a fair amount of weight. fwiw, makes me wonder a) perhaps Blake Lemoine was treated unfairly, and b) what else other agencies might have lurking in a lab.
  • TMWNN 4y ago
    As a non-expert in the field I was hesitant at the time to disagree with the legions of experts who last year denounced Lemoine and his claims. I know enough to know, though, of the AI effect <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect>, a longstanding tradition/bad habit of advances being dismissed by those in the field itself as "not real AI". Anyone, expert or not, in 1950, 1960, or even 1970 who was told that before the turn of the century a computer would defeat the world chess champion would conclude that said feat must have come as part of a breakthrough in AGI. Same if told that by 2015 many people would have in their homes, and carry around in their pockets, devices that can respond to spoken queries on a variety of topics. To put another way, I was hesitant to be as self-assuredly certain about how to define consciousness, intelligence, and sentience—and what it takes for them to emerge—as the experts who denounced Lemoine. The recent GPT breakthroughs have made me more so. I found this recent Sabine Hossenfelder video interesting. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP5zGh2fui0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP5zGh2fui0>