3 ms·
I sort of agree. They're probabilistic. They do not converge to truth. They converge to the training data, but of course the training data itself is inconsisten
by sublinear 3y ago
I sort of agree. They're probabilistic. They do not converge to truth. They converge to the training data, but of course the training data itself is inconsistent and then also it gets worse because it can only asymptotically approach it with, what I imagine, seems to be a very slow rate.
In general, LLMs are fine for search relevance and vague summarizing, but unfortunately marketed by con artists. Scaling them up doesn't magically produce "sentience" or "comprehension" or "emergent behavior".
- afiori 3y agoThis line of argument feels like it has an implicit assumption that progress for ai technology is to become more human-like. This is certainly a requirement if the objective is to replace humans, but ai could grow to be increasingly more sophisticated, capable of doing more and more tasks by progressing on different paths. This is not to say that the singularity is imminent, but the argument "Human intelligence has X as a necessary piece, AI has little amount of X so it is not intelligent" does not sound convincing to me.