3 ms·

Because eventually LLM based AI will be advanced enough to author its text with as much variety and diversity as any human, making it indistinguishable from any

Because eventually LLM based AI will be advanced enough to author its text with as much variety and diversity as any human, making it indistinguishable from anything authored by a human.

rsynnott 3y ago
That feels like a _huge_ assumption. It would arguably be quite surprising just based on the prior history of ML-y stuff; there's a tendency for things to get 95% good enough quickly, and then never quite make it to 100% (because 100% is really a completely different sort of problem, arguably requiring AGI). My favourite example of this: speech recognition. In the 90s this went quite quickly from a joke to a tech demo that required enormously expensive hardware to a tech demo that you could run on your laptop to actually marginally useful (you may remember Apple and particularly MS claiming that it was the future, and would soon be the primary way that people interacted with computers). And then, well... like, voice recognition today is certainly better than Dragon Dictate was 25 years ago, but you probably still wouldn't want to trust it with anything important, and it's certainly far worse at it than a human is. I'm struggling to think of _any_ ML-ish thing in the human-imitating space which has gotten all the way to virtually perfect/as good as human. Maybe OCR? Though even then, you still sometimes get odd results.
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  >I'm struggling to think of _any_ ML-ish thing in the human-imitating space which has gotten all the way to virtually perfect/as good as human. Go?
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    Oh, yeah, actually, fair, a few games. Though, can an expert human player reliably determine that they're playing against a machine? I suspect they can, but I don't know.
    - sebzim4500 3y ago
      In general the goal of these progrms is to win, not to pretend to be human. In chess, there is a project called Maia which aims at predicting the human move rather than the best move. Even then it blunders less than humans of a similar rating, so it can still be detected. https://maiachess.com/ https://maiachess.com/
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  > That feels like a _huge_ assumption. Huh, seems like a very reasonable inference to me.
marginalia_nu 3y ago
Will it?
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  I think so or I wouldn't have said so. You obviously disagree which is why you're obtusely indicating that. Guess we'll see.

Because eventually LLM based AI will be advanced enough to author its text with as much variety and diversity as any human, making it indistinguishable from anything authored by a human.

rsynnott 3y ago

That feels like a _huge_ assumption. It would arguably be quite surprising just based on the prior history of ML-y stuff; there's a tendency for things to get 95% good enough quickly, and then never quite make it to 100% (because 100% is really a completely different sort of problem, arguably requiring AGI). My favourite example of this: speech recognition. In the 90s this went quite quickly from a joke to a tech demo that required enormously expensive hardware to a tech demo that you could run on your laptop to actually marginally useful (you may remember Apple and particularly MS claiming that it was the future, and would soon be the primary way that people interacted with computers). And then, well... like, voice recognition today is certainly better than Dragon Dictate was 25 years ago, but you probably still wouldn't want to trust it with anything important, and it's certainly far worse at it than a human is. I'm struggling to think of _any_ ML-ish thing in the human-imitating space which has gotten all the way to virtually perfect/as good as human. Maybe OCR? Though even then, you still sometimes get odd results.

sebzim4500 3y ago
>I'm struggling to think of _any_ ML-ish thing in the human-imitating space which has gotten all the way to virtually perfect/as good as human. Go?
- rsynnott 3y ago
  Oh, yeah, actually, fair, a few games. Though, can an expert human player reliably determine that they're playing against a machine? I suspect they can, but I don't know.
  - sebzim4500 3y ago
    In general the goal of these progrms is to win, not to pretend to be human. In chess, there is a project called Maia which aims at predicting the human move rather than the best move. Even then it blunders less than humans of a similar rating, so it can still be detected. https://maiachess.com/ https://maiachess.com/
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> That feels like a _huge_ assumption. Huh, seems like a very reasonable inference to me.

marginalia_nu 3y ago

Will it?

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
I think so or I wouldn't have said so. You obviously disagree which is why you're obtusely indicating that. Guess we'll see.