3 ms·

I think Stallman is right. It's really the term 'intelligence', that's the issue here. We should stop using using that term. I personally just use 'machine lea

I think Stallman is right. It's really the term 'intelligence', that's the issue here. We should stop using using that term. I personally just use 'machine learning' or '(statistical/mathematical) model'. But then there's marketing, i know.

mdp2021 4y ago
> We should stop using using that term There would be little issue with the term 'Artificial Intelligence', provided that it were clear it means "problem solver that could replace a human professional, in finding clever solutions". So, in normal logic, when you call a Statistical Language Model - or an Expert System, or Sorting, whatever - "Artificial Intelligence", it should be clear that you implied the above nuance.
criddell 4y ago
Somebody might have a problem with using machine for non-mechanical devices. I like statistical/mathematical model, but then that seems like what “real” intelligence probably is. So maybe the problem isn’t with the “I” part of “AI”, but with the “A”. If intelligence is a full spectrum thing and not a binary condition, then maybe LLMs have intelligence somewhere between mold and birds?
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > Somebody might have a problem 'Machine' comes from the root best represented by current 'might', so it is generic enough to cover a good amount of expressions of the area of "enabler" - if those «some» want to be reassured. > somewhere between mold and birds In our context, then you should employ it where you would have employed mold and birds in absence of a non-human facilitator.
phailhaus 4y ago
We should just call it what it is: an LLM. Other terms are far too broad and lump GPT-4 in the same bucket as a chess engine.
mindslight 4y ago
I'd say RMS is right with the implication to not use the term "artificial intelligence" - it groups many different types of systems under one heading, and seems better suited for use as a marketing term rather than in technical discussions. But I also think it's critically wrong to casually dismiss LLM's as being "not intelligent". This feels like religious-woo thinking that insists there must be something special going on with our minds that exists outside the physical world [0]. While this is possibly true, it's an unscientific null hypothesis - similar to insisting that only you yourself are conscious while everyone else is an NPC. Rather LLMs and other ML models are just different, on many dimensions. Current ones write better than a high school sophomore. They're often confidently wrong, but so are high school sophomores. The breadth of the topics they know seemingly exceeds any human (so did web search engines a decade ago). Is it possible to use a current LLM to perform the jobs of many paper-pushing office workers? Probably. Is it possible to take a given LLM instance, as configured for having dialog, and teach it for another "10 years" to get it from HS sophomore to graduate student or skilled tradesperson? Seemingly not. Ultimately, instead of coarse assertions like "not intelligent" due to not meeting our bar in some aspects, or due to how little working memory it's using answer queries, we need to be be making specific quantitative comparisons to human intelligence rather than trying to pigeonhole the technology with discrete judgements about what "it is" or isn't. [0] IMO the proper conclusion from the Chinese Room thought experiment is that the understanding exists within the system of rules.

mdp2021 4y ago

> We should stop using using that term There would be little issue with the term 'Artificial Intelligence', provided that it were clear it means "problem solver that could replace a human professional, in finding clever solutions". So, in normal logic, when you call a Statistical Language Model - or an Expert System, or Sorting, whatever - "Artificial Intelligence", it should be clear that you implied the above nuance.

criddell 4y ago

Somebody might have a problem with using machine for non-mechanical devices. I like statistical/mathematical model, but then that seems like what “real” intelligence probably is. So maybe the problem isn’t with the “I” part of “AI”, but with the “A”. If intelligence is a full spectrum thing and not a binary condition, then maybe LLMs have intelligence somewhere between mold and birds?

mdp2021 4y ago
> Somebody might have a problem 'Machine' comes from the root best represented by current 'might', so it is generic enough to cover a good amount of expressions of the area of "enabler" - if those «some» want to be reassured. > somewhere between mold and birds In our context, then you should employ it where you would have employed mold and birds in absence of a non-human facilitator.

phailhaus 4y ago

We should just call it what it is: an LLM. Other terms are far too broad and lump GPT-4 in the same bucket as a chess engine.

mindslight 4y ago

I'd say RMS is right with the implication to not use the term "artificial intelligence" - it groups many different types of systems under one heading, and seems better suited for use as a marketing term rather than in technical discussions. But I also think it's critically wrong to casually dismiss LLM's as being "not intelligent". This feels like religious-woo thinking that insists there must be something special going on with our minds that exists outside the physical world [0]. While this is possibly true, it's an unscientific null hypothesis - similar to insisting that only you yourself are conscious while everyone else is an NPC. Rather LLMs and other ML models are just different, on many dimensions. Current ones write better than a high school sophomore. They're often confidently wrong, but so are high school sophomores. The breadth of the topics they know seemingly exceeds any human (so did web search engines a decade ago). Is it possible to use a current LLM to perform the jobs of many paper-pushing office workers? Probably. Is it possible to take a given LLM instance, as configured for having dialog, and teach it for another "10 years" to get it from HS sophomore to graduate student or skilled tradesperson? Seemingly not. Ultimately, instead of coarse assertions like "not intelligent" due to not meeting our bar in some aspects, or due to how little working memory it's using answer queries, we need to be be making specific quantitative comparisons to human intelligence rather than trying to pigeonhole the technology with discrete judgements about what "it is" or isn't. [0] IMO the proper conclusion from the Chinese Room thought experiment is that the understanding exists within the system of rules.