4 ms·

This is a remarkably dense set of falsehoods. I count a single truthful sentence. GPT-4 is not AI? Such obstinate denialism.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
The goalposts for AI are so far removed from where they were a year ago that they're hardly visible anymore.
- teddyh 3y ago
  The current LLM’s can say things, but they have nothing to say; they all just say whatever sounds good in context. We have yet to have a generally useful AI which can reason, and use the reasoning to tell us things.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    Actually we have reasoning AI - in inductive and deductive reasoning spaces. What we lack is abductive reasoning AI, which LLMs are actually really really close to. They all lack agency, but you can approximate agency through goal based agents. By tying together a goal based agent with inductive, deductive and LLM in a feedback cycle, I think you’ll find we are pretty darn close. The reasoning behavior will be different than human, and maybe the reasoning classes need to be extended, but we have already crafted either optimal or decent approximations of human reasoning. The task as I see it is less making LLM AGI but in taking all the AI work to date and synthesizing them into an ensemble that delegates tasks to the right model based on the domain of a sub tasks in a larger task space and providing the appropriate feedback, state, integrations, as well as providing integrations to optimizers, solvers, and other computational and mechanical algorithms.
- flangola7 3y ago
  It reminds me of nurses reporting all the patients dying of COVID-19 insisting to their last breath that covid isn't real. There is nothing that will change their mind because it has become opaque to objective reality. Burying their head even if suffocates them.
aero-deck 3y ago
Denial of what? That AI is as important as AI-fans think that it is?
- George83728 3y ago
  Isn't it the opposite? People who are willing to say that a simple ELIZA bot is a form of AI think that something being AI isn't very important; it's a low bar to clear and doesn't imply much about the usefulness of the thing. To these people, AI is not intrinsically important. A chess bot is AI, it has very limited utility and just isn't important at all in any domain other than chess. On the other hand, people who say that AI is an as-of-yet unobtained far-future technology are saying that AI is intrinsically very sophisticated and useful; so much so that nobody has succeeded in creating one yet. These people think that AI is intrinsically important. They think the term AI is so important that it must not be applied to systems with limited mundane usefulness.
  - jmopp 3y ago
    > They think the term AI is so important that it must not be applied to systems with limited mundane usefulness Yes? Thinking is hard. People would happily delegate as much cognitive load to a computer as possible - especially if they believe the computer is intelligent. With this comes 'computer says no' and 'we are not responsible; it was the AI that was behaving unjust'. Until we have an artificial intelligence that can take responsibility for its actions - and remedy them if needs be, we should hammer home that these systems have limited mundane usefulness.
    - flangola7 3y ago
      Corporations and CEOs already don't take responsibility for their actions. That hasn't stopped them from becoming very powerful.
    - George83728 3y ago
      People delegate their decision making to other systems all the time, whether or not those systems are termed to be AI. There is no empirical test for whether or not a system is AGI, and 'AI' is a term which has been applied to all manner of mundane systems for decades already. It is not important that we restrict the term AI to only mean AGI (whatever it is that AGI even means!) The 'CPU' players in Mario Kart 64 were frequently called AI, and there was no problem with that. Anybody who gets bent out of shape over the casual use of the term AI is placing way too much importance on the term.

AlecSchueler 3y ago

The goalposts for AI are so far removed from where they were a year ago that they're hardly visible anymore.

teddyh 3y ago
The current LLM’s can say things, but they have nothing to say; they all just say whatever sounds good in context. We have yet to have a generally useful AI which can reason, and use the reasoning to tell us things.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Actually we have reasoning AI - in inductive and deductive reasoning spaces. What we lack is abductive reasoning AI, which LLMs are actually really really close to. They all lack agency, but you can approximate agency through goal based agents. By tying together a goal based agent with inductive, deductive and LLM in a feedback cycle, I think you’ll find we are pretty darn close. The reasoning behavior will be different than human, and maybe the reasoning classes need to be extended, but we have already crafted either optimal or decent approximations of human reasoning. The task as I see it is less making LLM AGI but in taking all the AI work to date and synthesizing them into an ensemble that delegates tasks to the right model based on the domain of a sub tasks in a larger task space and providing the appropriate feedback, state, integrations, as well as providing integrations to optimizers, solvers, and other computational and mechanical algorithms.
flangola7 3y ago
It reminds me of nurses reporting all the patients dying of COVID-19 insisting to their last breath that covid isn't real. There is nothing that will change their mind because it has become opaque to objective reality. Burying their head even if suffocates them.

aero-deck 3y ago

Denial of what? That AI is as important as AI-fans think that it is?

George83728 3y ago
Isn't it the opposite? People who are willing to say that a simple ELIZA bot is a form of AI think that something being AI isn't very important; it's a low bar to clear and doesn't imply much about the usefulness of the thing. To these people, AI is not intrinsically important. A chess bot is AI, it has very limited utility and just isn't important at all in any domain other than chess. On the other hand, people who say that AI is an as-of-yet unobtained far-future technology are saying that AI is intrinsically very sophisticated and useful; so much so that nobody has succeeded in creating one yet. These people think that AI is intrinsically important. They think the term AI is so important that it must not be applied to systems with limited mundane usefulness.
- jmopp 3y ago
  > They think the term AI is so important that it must not be applied to systems with limited mundane usefulness Yes? Thinking is hard. People would happily delegate as much cognitive load to a computer as possible - especially if they believe the computer is intelligent. With this comes 'computer says no' and 'we are not responsible; it was the AI that was behaving unjust'. Until we have an artificial intelligence that can take responsibility for its actions - and remedy them if needs be, we should hammer home that these systems have limited mundane usefulness.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Corporations and CEOs already don't take responsibility for their actions. That hasn't stopped them from becoming very powerful.
  - George83728 3y ago
    People delegate their decision making to other systems all the time, whether or not those systems are termed to be AI. There is no empirical test for whether or not a system is AGI, and 'AI' is a term which has been applied to all manner of mundane systems for decades already. It is not important that we restrict the term AI to only mean AGI (whatever it is that AGI even means!) The 'CPU' players in Mario Kart 64 were frequently called AI, and there was no problem with that. Anybody who gets bent out of shape over the casual use of the term AI is placing way too much importance on the term.