3 ms·

Are humans not generally intelligent ?. Since when has been the answer to "not good at math" been chuck a textbook at it ? You would have limited success doing

Are humans not generally intelligent ?. Since when has been the answer to "not good at math" been chuck a textbook at it ? You would have limited success doing this with people. Do people not explain things they don't fully understand? Understanding is not binary. This is kind of problem I keep seeing. Expectations and post shifting have grown so much that a significant chunk of the human population wouldn't even pass so called General Intelligence requirements.

civilized 4y ago
I learned arithmetic laws from a textbook and practice problems. I didn't need a teacher gesticulating or any fancy multimodal stuff. It's symbolic manipulation. What is the machine missing that I was given? There's no post shifting. The research community has been setting itself realistically attainable benchmarks. Now that the research community has made a lot of progress against its benchmarks, we have hype, claims of general intelligence. Which attracts people like me, who compare the hype to actual performance. And as I said elsewhere, the performance of GPT on the questions I posed is only comparable to a human with a severe traumatic brain injury.
- famouswaffles 4y ago
  I don't care what you did. All due respect, you are one person. I care about what can observed by people in general. Dunno what to tell you other than textbook and practice problems is far from the solution you think it is for a big chunk of the population.
  - civilized 4y ago
    We have a machine that is dedicated to symbolic manipulation (prediction of new symbols based on past ones). It seems reasonable to compare it to a person that is good at symbolic manipulation. Why would we compare the machine to average people who mostly don't think that way? Why would training a neural network architecture that lives and breathes symbols somehow yield an entity with intelligence like that of an average human? Most humans learn primarily from completely different sources.

civilized 4y ago

I learned arithmetic laws from a textbook and practice problems. I didn't need a teacher gesticulating or any fancy multimodal stuff. It's symbolic manipulation. What is the machine missing that I was given? There's no post shifting. The research community has been setting itself realistically attainable benchmarks. Now that the research community has made a lot of progress against its benchmarks, we have hype, claims of general intelligence. Which attracts people like me, who compare the hype to actual performance. And as I said elsewhere, the performance of GPT on the questions I posed is only comparable to a human with a severe traumatic brain injury.

famouswaffles 4y ago
I don't care what you did. All due respect, you are one person. I care about what can observed by people in general. Dunno what to tell you other than textbook and practice problems is far from the solution you think it is for a big chunk of the population.
- civilized 4y ago
  We have a machine that is dedicated to symbolic manipulation (prediction of new symbols based on past ones). It seems reasonable to compare it to a person that is good at symbolic manipulation. Why would we compare the machine to average people who mostly don't think that way? Why would training a neural network architecture that lives and breathes symbols somehow yield an entity with intelligence like that of an average human? Most humans learn primarily from completely different sources.