4 ms·

Do you mean current A.I.? Say ChatGPT? If so... current AI doesn't read. It is just a mechanical parrot. It looks at the words in a book and learns how to dete

by bwb 4y ago

Do you mean current A.I.? Say ChatGPT? If so... current AI doesn't read. It is just a mechanical parrot. It looks at the words in a book and learns how to determine the probability of word responses. That is it. It isn't learning anything, it isn't even reading anything. A human reading a book teaches them how to think, opens their mind to new ideas and connections, and so much more. Or do you mean a general AI and something in the future out of a science fiction book with sentience?

akasakahakada 4y ago
So you can learn stuff from book, but suddently AI can't. AI learn that usually people use 'is' after 'he', but this is not a discovery or a noval idea in the perspective of the AI, and is not real learning? Then what is 'real' learning?
- bwb 4y ago
  Yes. I don't understand, current AI doesn't learn. Why would you think it is? That is fundamentally not how this works.
- latexr 4y ago
  > Then what is 'real' learning? It’s understanding. GPT succeeds at simple math questions because it has seen them over and over in texts, but give it something it has never seen and it will fumble. It doesn’t understand and does not replicate the method used to arrive at the correct solution and it will fake an answer instead of telling you it doesn’t know, which is even worse.
  - akasakahakada 4y ago
    But human still struggle from novel university entrance exam questions. Unless you say human never struggle.
    - latexr 4y ago
      I’m genuinely starting to wonder if you’re arguing in good faith. From answers on this thread it seems you have a fixed idea in mind and are doing everything you can to keep it intact without understanding what others are saying. Yes, humans struggle. But crucially, AI doesn’t. When GPT gives you a wrong answer it didn’t “struggle” to come up with it; spewing wrong information is just the same to it as giving you the right answer. It doesn’t know the difference, and that’s the point. Otherwise, if your claim is that it truly understands what it has read, then every time it gives you a wrong answer it means it would be actively lying. I hope you can see how that’s even worse.
      - akasakahakada 4y ago
        So human do not attempt to tick arbitrary random answer in multiple choice problems when the person have empty knowledge in the domain, or simply no time to think. Human is really special.
        latexr 4y ago
        > So human do not attempt to tick arbitrary random answer in multiple choice problems when the person have empty knowledge in the domain I truly hope you understand there is more to knowledge than multiple choice questions in a university entrance exam. Those are an extremely low bar. More importantly, that’s not what matters from the point.
        akasakahakada 4y ago
        Simply this is just a matter or expressing the "not knowing enough" in mathematical terms. And literally this is easy, as easy as adding a threshold to the restrict from commenting anything that has vast distance from the current knowledge domain. Just a little thought, as what math professor always written in the math textbook. And I don't see it is constructive to foreverly state the human superiority instead of trying to study or modelize that intellectual ability.
- klabb3 4y ago
  > So you can learn stuff from book, but suddently AI can't. Yes. In fact, people sometimes take the same pattern matching approach as LLMs, and they get pretty good at simulating knowledge, especially in front of laymen. You can usually tell if you’re a domain expert when people using advanced terminology in a confident way, but what they say don’t make sense and they don’t seem to recognize and correct based on dialogue when you zoom in on the details. This is quite common, and also quite annoying. It may be part of the fake-it-til-you-make-it cultural zeitgeist. > AI learn that usually people use 'is' after 'he', but this is not a discovery or a noval idea Ah, yes this is probably just pattern matching which we aren’t really aware of but are exceptionally good at, especially children who learn their native language. This skill is doable by AI, it seems. Perhaps that’s just an indication that pattern-prediction is a somehow a different type of skill than general purpose reasoning. I’m inclined to think so, because reasoning can be done without language. It’s surprisingly controversial to say that, but I’m pretty convinced, based on both my own mind and also of experiments on animal intelligence.

by bwb 4y ago

akasakahakada 4y ago

So you can learn stuff from book, but suddently AI can't. AI learn that usually people use 'is' after 'he', but this is not a discovery or a noval idea in the perspective of the AI, and is not real learning? Then what is 'real' learning?

bwb 4y ago
Yes. I don't understand, current AI doesn't learn. Why would you think it is? That is fundamentally not how this works.
latexr 4y ago
> Then what is 'real' learning? It’s understanding. GPT succeeds at simple math questions because it has seen them over and over in texts, but give it something it has never seen and it will fumble. It doesn’t understand and does not replicate the method used to arrive at the correct solution and it will fake an answer instead of telling you it doesn’t know, which is even worse.
- akasakahakada 4y ago
  But human still struggle from novel university entrance exam questions. Unless you say human never struggle.
  - latexr 4y ago
    I’m genuinely starting to wonder if you’re arguing in good faith. From answers on this thread it seems you have a fixed idea in mind and are doing everything you can to keep it intact without understanding what others are saying. Yes, humans struggle. But crucially, AI doesn’t. When GPT gives you a wrong answer it didn’t “struggle” to come up with it; spewing wrong information is just the same to it as giving you the right answer. It doesn’t know the difference, and that’s the point. Otherwise, if your claim is that it truly understands what it has read, then every time it gives you a wrong answer it means it would be actively lying. I hope you can see how that’s even worse.
    - akasakahakada 4y ago
      So human do not attempt to tick arbitrary random answer in multiple choice problems when the person have empty knowledge in the domain, or simply no time to think. Human is really special.
      - latexr 4y ago
        > So human do not attempt to tick arbitrary random answer in multiple choice problems when the person have empty knowledge in the domain I truly hope you understand there is more to knowledge than multiple choice questions in a university entrance exam. Those are an extremely low bar. More importantly, that’s not what matters from the point.
        akasakahakada 4y ago
        Simply this is just a matter or expressing the "not knowing enough" in mathematical terms. And literally this is easy, as easy as adding a threshold to the restrict from commenting anything that has vast distance from the current knowledge domain. Just a little thought, as what math professor always written in the math textbook. And I don't see it is constructive to foreverly state the human superiority instead of trying to study or modelize that intellectual ability.
klabb3 4y ago
> So you can learn stuff from book, but suddently AI can't. Yes. In fact, people sometimes take the same pattern matching approach as LLMs, and they get pretty good at simulating knowledge, especially in front of laymen. You can usually tell if you’re a domain expert when people using advanced terminology in a confident way, but what they say don’t make sense and they don’t seem to recognize and correct based on dialogue when you zoom in on the details. This is quite common, and also quite annoying. It may be part of the fake-it-til-you-make-it cultural zeitgeist. > AI learn that usually people use 'is' after 'he', but this is not a discovery or a noval idea Ah, yes this is probably just pattern matching which we aren’t really aware of but are exceptionally good at, especially children who learn their native language. This skill is doable by AI, it seems. Perhaps that’s just an indication that pattern-prediction is a somehow a different type of skill than general purpose reasoning. I’m inclined to think so, because reasoning can be done without language. It’s surprisingly controversial to say that, but I’m pretty convinced, based on both my own mind and also of experiments on animal intelligence.