3 ms·

It's a thought provoking question isn't it. We just take it for granted. We can think of AI as the quest for a computer program that is a complex adaptive syst

by Affric 3y ago

It's a thought provoking question isn't it. We just take it for granted. We can think of AI as the quest for a computer program that is a complex adaptive system that can exchange information with us in an anthropomorphised manner. LLMs are much closer to such a technology than a program that can optimally play a board game by evaluating each position and pruning its model accordingly.

mdp2021 3y ago
> that can exchange information with us in an anthropomorphised manner No, thank you. Let us just stick to "a system that can solve problems potentially replacing a professional", which also would imply "providing a professional output". That «anthropomorphised» could make one think of the joke (which exploits the gender-bent use of 'man' in demotic): Seller: "This computer reasons just like a man". Female customer: "Can I have one that just reasons?" Similarly, it should "exchange information well" - not "like a human".
- Affric 3y ago
  By the tone of your comment it's my assumption that were you alive when "wer" replaced by the gendered use of "man" I am sure you would have been all over it. "Professional" and "well" are small targets for tech firms attempting to explain R&D to their share holders. The pursuit of artificial intelligence is something with far deeper roots and wider ranging consequences than most pedants can imagine.
  - mdp2021 3y ago
    > all over it Oh, the same as today, had it also happened around that time that licence got widespreadly felt as a prevailing right. > share holders If you want to sell, surely there is market for all kind of junk. We also have this need for the "real things" though. > pedants No, not pedantry: the difference is radical, between form and effectiveness. In AGI, it's the proper reasoning that makes the "real" difference - use of natural language could be useful. We want the consultant to be competent and smart, not dressed attractively and "smart".
    - Affric 3y ago
      I had misunderstood your comment original comment. Upon rereading my original comment I take your point. Thank you for persisting.

by Affric 3y ago

mdp2021 3y ago

> that can exchange information with us in an anthropomorphised manner No, thank you. Let us just stick to "a system that can solve problems potentially replacing a professional", which also would imply "providing a professional output". That «anthropomorphised» could make one think of the joke (which exploits the gender-bent use of 'man' in demotic): Seller: "This computer reasons just like a man". Female customer: "Can I have one that just reasons?" Similarly, it should "exchange information well" - not "like a human".

Affric 3y ago
By the tone of your comment it's my assumption that were you alive when "wer" replaced by the gendered use of "man" I am sure you would have been all over it. "Professional" and "well" are small targets for tech firms attempting to explain R&D to their share holders. The pursuit of artificial intelligence is something with far deeper roots and wider ranging consequences than most pedants can imagine.
- mdp2021 3y ago
  > all over it Oh, the same as today, had it also happened around that time that licence got widespreadly felt as a prevailing right. > share holders If you want to sell, surely there is market for all kind of junk. We also have this need for the "real things" though. > pedants No, not pedantry: the difference is radical, between form and effectiveness. In AGI, it's the proper reasoning that makes the "real" difference - use of natural language could be useful. We want the consultant to be competent and smart, not dressed attractively and "smart".
  - Affric 3y ago
    I had misunderstood your comment original comment. Upon rereading my original comment I take your point. Thank you for persisting.