3 ms·

Your arguments are all over the place and frankly I don't understand what is the problem you are trying to say. Something can be both undesirable and normal. In

Your arguments are all over the place and frankly I don't understand what is the problem you are trying to say. Something can be both undesirable and normal. In fact, I would even say that most of the time, the most normal outcome is a failure and we have to put in extra effort to make it a success. I have seen plenty of bright and intelligence students who most of the time are just parrots of what were told in class or from some other sources. It is actually highly unusual for a high school student or even a freshman or sophomore in college to have an absolutely original and correct idea. That doesn't mean I look at my students as unintelligent, even the below-average ones. And here comes the crux of the issue. You automatically assign the ability to "reason" to a human even when we make mistakes aplenty. But when a machine does it, you said that is a proof of unintelligence. This is what the OP was criticizing in their post. Most deniers are using arbitrary requirements applied only on the AI and not humans. After teaching quite a few college level kids, I dare to say that the AI models right now exhibit reasoning ability close to many human. Doesn't mean they are sentient or human-level yet, but they are definitely much much better than what I would ever expect out of dumb silicon and steel.

mdp2021 4y ago
> You automatically assign the ability to "reason" to a human even when we make mistakes aplenty. But when a machine does it, you said that is a proof of unintelligence ... requirements applied only on the AI and not humans Whereas I apply them requirements also to humans? :) I must correct you, to help understanding: I do assign in general (I hope, to all individuals but for an n-th standard deviation) «the ability to "reason" to a human»; that «we make mistakes aplenty» is overriding (or under-using) a faculty which was present but, in those cases, was not exercised. You write «when a machine does it»: but can the machine do it? Can it criticize its ontological contents, its built concepts? Humans can, and pretty much must - deontically. The machine should. > we have to put in extra effort Exactly. We can, many don't, and the machine should - just like people in general should. > the problem you are trying to say While people do not always exercise critical thinking, they should. Verifying, trying your ideas and concepts, making them solid, should be a constant effort. Humans have those modules, which makes them apt to possibly be employed as "predicting machines" (which is a definition of intelligence), or "things you can ask things". When you build a machine that produces outputs, they may be "for fun", so every generator goes that satisfies the "fun" based "performance indicator", but more normally you will want the output to be reliable. So, the "verification" features are crucial. > Something can be both undesirable and normal In engineering, I hope not :)
- galaxytachyon 4y ago
  If I understood you correctly, you are asserting that the LLMs entirely lack the "self-awareness" or "critical thinking" part while human simply doesn't use it enough but we are all born with it and always have that ability as a built-in feature, inherent to our beings? If so, then you are right on the machine's part. The current LLMs can't change its own weights thus in a sense, incapable of questioning its own existence. It can't perform a highly philosophical debate with its own "self" and reform its mind as a result of that action. What I am still arguing is many human can't do that either. Such thing, in my experience, is actually not that common in the general populace. And while you can say it is there, just "unexercised", that would be functionally identical to it not existing and you can't absolutely prove that "it is still there" in all human. >In engineering, I hope not Perhaps in your particular type of engineering. In civil engineering, material degradation is undesirable and normal. In chemical engineering, side reactions are undesirable and normal. In biomedical engineering, well there are too many to list, from undesirable epigenetic changes to patients' unhealthy lifestyles. Things can definitely be undesirable but normal.

mdp2021 4y ago

> You automatically assign the ability to "reason" to a human even when we make mistakes aplenty. But when a machine does it, you said that is a proof of unintelligence ... requirements applied only on the AI and not humans Whereas I apply them requirements also to humans? :) I must correct you, to help understanding: I do assign in general (I hope, to all individuals but for an n-th standard deviation) «the ability to "reason" to a human»; that «we make mistakes aplenty» is overriding (or under-using) a faculty which was present but, in those cases, was not exercised. You write «when a machine does it»: but can the machine do it? Can it criticize its ontological contents, its built concepts? Humans can, and pretty much must - deontically. The machine should. > we have to put in extra effort Exactly. We can, many don't, and the machine should - just like people in general should. > the problem you are trying to say While people do not always exercise critical thinking, they should. Verifying, trying your ideas and concepts, making them solid, should be a constant effort. Humans have those modules, which makes them apt to possibly be employed as "predicting machines" (which is a definition of intelligence), or "things you can ask things". When you build a machine that produces outputs, they may be "for fun", so every generator goes that satisfies the "fun" based "performance indicator", but more normally you will want the output to be reliable. So, the "verification" features are crucial. > Something can be both undesirable and normal In engineering, I hope not :)

galaxytachyon 4y ago
If I understood you correctly, you are asserting that the LLMs entirely lack the "self-awareness" or "critical thinking" part while human simply doesn't use it enough but we are all born with it and always have that ability as a built-in feature, inherent to our beings? If so, then you are right on the machine's part. The current LLMs can't change its own weights thus in a sense, incapable of questioning its own existence. It can't perform a highly philosophical debate with its own "self" and reform its mind as a result of that action. What I am still arguing is many human can't do that either. Such thing, in my experience, is actually not that common in the general populace. And while you can say it is there, just "unexercised", that would be functionally identical to it not existing and you can't absolutely prove that "it is still there" in all human. >In engineering, I hope not Perhaps in your particular type of engineering. In civil engineering, material degradation is undesirable and normal. In chemical engineering, side reactions are undesirable and normal. In biomedical engineering, well there are too many to list, from undesirable epigenetic changes to patients' unhealthy lifestyles. Things can definitely be undesirable but normal.