19 ms·
Funny that we never quite understood how intelligence worked and yet it appears that we're pretty damn close to recreating it - still without knowing how it wor
by ryandvm 3y ago
Funny that we never quite understood how intelligence worked and yet it appears that we're pretty damn close to recreating it - still without knowing how it works.
I wonder how often this happens in the universe...
- samiskin 3y agoEvolution created intelligence without even being intelligent itself
- dontknowwhyihn 3y agoHow do you know that’s true?
- chrischen 3y agoEvolution is not a single orchestrator. It is merely the natural result of a simple mechanical process over a timescale that exceeds the lifetime of the common human.
- candiddevmike 3y agoBecause we eat and breath through the same tube
- _justinfunk 3y agoThere are two tubes.
- p1esk 3y agoEvolution came up with the shared eating/breathing tube design because it made sense for aquatic animals (from which we evolved).
- KineticLensman 3y agoThe trachea and oesophagus both start in the common space of the pharynx. The epiglottis stops food going down the wrong one
- hackernewds 3y agowe don't. which is why we choke and hiccup
- flangola7 3y agoEvolution is just a description of a process, it isn't a tangible thing.
- thfuran 3y agoYou're proposing that statistics is intelligent?
- hypertele-Xii 3y agoYou're proposing that evolution is statistics?
- thfuran 3y agoBasically, yeah.
- 8bitsrule 3y agoNotable that the people who saw the first automatons argued whether they were alive.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- int_19h 3y agoPeople also argued that animals are mere automatons, that all their observable behavior is basically scripted, and that humans shouldn't empathize with them on those grounds. That's how vivisection etc used to be justified since at least Descartes.
- poulpy123 3y agoBecause evolution is random change + natural selection
- techolic 3y ago> that we're pretty damn close to recreating it Is that evident already or are we fitting the definition of intelligence without being aware?
- p1esk 3y agoIf you spent any time with GPT-4 it should be evident.
- akiselev 3y agoIf you spent even more time with GPT-4 it would be evident that it is definitely not. Especially if you try to use it as some kind of autonomous agent.
- p1esk 3y agoWhat have you tried to do with it?
- akiselev 3y agoUse it to analyze the California & US Code, the California & Federal Codes of Regulation, and bills currently in the California legislation & Congress. It's far from useless but far more useful for creative writing than any kind of understanding or instruction following when it comes to complex topics. Even performing a map-reduce over large documents to summarize or analyze them for a specific audience is largely beyond it. A 32K context size is a pittance when it comes to a single Title in the USC or CFR, which average into the millions of tokens each.
- p1esk 3y agoInteresting - do you believe average humans (not professional lawyers) would do better on this task?
- 3y ago
- gowld 3y agoStarting a fire is easy to do even if you don't know how it works.
- kmote00 3y agoAppropriate analogy in more ways than one. Particularly given the unpredictable consequences of doing so.
- deepsun 3y agoYep, we don't know all constituents of buttermilk, nor how bread stales (there's too much going on inside). But it doesn't prevent us to judge their usefulness.
- brookst 3y agoImitation -> emulation -> duplication -> revolution is a very common pattern in nature, society, and business. Aka “fake it til you make it”. Think of business / artistic / cultural leaders nurturing protégés despite not totally understanding why they’re successful. Of course those protégés have agency and drive, so maybe not a perfect analogy. But I’m going to stand by the point intuitively even if a better example escapes me.
- Grimblewald 3y agoNot that weird if you think about it, our intelligence simultaneously measly and amazing as it is, was the product of trial, error, and sheer dumb luck. We could think of ourselves as monkeys with typewriters, eventually we'll get it right.
- olalonde 3y agoThe battery (Voltaic Pile, 1800) and the telegraph (1830s-1840s) were both invented before the electron was discovered (1897).
- red_admiral 3y agoAlso Darwin published a theory of evolution, and Mendel discovered genetics, before anyone even thought of the term "double helix".
- pfdietz 3y agoHell, consider all the technology that was developed before science really got going.
- k99x55 3y agoNo need to know about electrons to understand electricity.
- bluepoint 3y agoNo matter what it is probably easier to inspect a language model while it works, than the language module of a human while he speaks.
- pmontra 3y agoWe are probably creating something that looks like our intelligence but it works in a different way. An example: we are not very good at creating flight, the one birds do and humans always regarded as flight, and yet we fly across half the globe in one day. Going up three meters and landing on a branch is a different matter.
- runlaszlorun 3y agoWe don’t know…
- fennecfoxy 3y agoI feel like OAI's approach is kind of wrong. GPT4 is still just text transformation/completion with multi-headed attention for better prediction of the next word that should follow (versus only looking at the previous word). In human brains, language is only a way to communicate thoughts in concept form, though we also seem to use language to communicate abstract thoughts to ourselves to break them apart/down in a way (imo). I'd love to see someone train a model on the level of GPT4 to generate abstract thoughts/ideas based on input/context and then pair this model with GPT4 co-operatively and continue to train, such that the flow of abstract ideas is parsed by GPT. But like...how do you even train a model that operates on abstract ideas, there doesn't seem to be any way to do this.