4 ms·

> No one should be surprised to learn that the products of the "open" wing of an industry whose products are neither "artificial," nor "intelligent," are also n

> No one should be surprised to learn that the products of the "open" wing of an industry whose products are neither "artificial," nor "intelligent," are also not "open." I understand hating on OpenAI for not being open, I agree. But to argue their products aren't AI-related is tenuous at best. Yes, they are trained by humans. But does that really exclude these models from living under the umbrella of AI? I just think the author should have backed up this portion of their argument more.

haswell 3y ago
I think this touches on the fundamental issue with most AI technology in its current stage of development. The word “intelligent” means something very different than what most people understand the word to mean. Yes, it holds a specific meaning relative to AI products, but I think the point is generally that the industry is using these words flippantly, and in ways that influence public perception to these company’s benefit.
- willio58 3y ago
  Interesting point. I agree the word "intelligent" can be a sticking point in this area but just looking at the definition that comes up when I long press the word on my Mac: intelligent | inˈteləj(ə)nt | adjective • (of a device, machine, or building) able to vary its state or action in response to varying situations, varying requirements, and past experience. I would describe ChatGPT as intelligent based on those terms. Is it AGI? Absolutely not. But I would call it intelligent because I can give it unique input and it will give unique and helpful output relevant to the context I provided it.
  - haswell 3y ago
    I tend to agree that these are "intelligent" tools, and we've been calling various categories of tech intelligent since long before LLMs entered the public consciousness. But when LLMs entered the public consciousness, it was perceived as (and implicitly sold as) a new kind of intelligence. Something fundamentally different than what has come before. And to be fair, there's some truth to that, and the experience of interacting with these tools validates that view. They feel intelligent, and it's easy to anthropomorphize. Blake Lemoine and Kevin Roose come to mind. As a result, I think the broad perception is that this new kind of intelligence is AGI-adjacent, even if it's clearly not yet AGI. But this is a distinction that is likely lost on just about everyone who doesn't work in or deeply understand technology. I think these companies are pretty happy to leave that misconception as-is. They'd rather the public think these things are AGI-like. The reason I'm splitting hairs here is because this all plays into whatever happens next in terms of public policy/regulations, and I think the current level of understanding outside of our bubble is rather poor. And to bring this full circle, that's why I'm defending the use of scare quotes in this piece. I think they highlight something that we haven't figured out how to talk about accurately yet.

haswell 3y ago

I think this touches on the fundamental issue with most AI technology in its current stage of development. The word “intelligent” means something very different than what most people understand the word to mean. Yes, it holds a specific meaning relative to AI products, but I think the point is generally that the industry is using these words flippantly, and in ways that influence public perception to these company’s benefit.

willio58 3y ago
Interesting point. I agree the word "intelligent" can be a sticking point in this area but just looking at the definition that comes up when I long press the word on my Mac: intelligent | inˈteləj(ə)nt | adjective • (of a device, machine, or building) able to vary its state or action in response to varying situations, varying requirements, and past experience. I would describe ChatGPT as intelligent based on those terms. Is it AGI? Absolutely not. But I would call it intelligent because I can give it unique input and it will give unique and helpful output relevant to the context I provided it.
- haswell 3y ago
  I tend to agree that these are "intelligent" tools, and we've been calling various categories of tech intelligent since long before LLMs entered the public consciousness. But when LLMs entered the public consciousness, it was perceived as (and implicitly sold as) a new kind of intelligence. Something fundamentally different than what has come before. And to be fair, there's some truth to that, and the experience of interacting with these tools validates that view. They feel intelligent, and it's easy to anthropomorphize. Blake Lemoine and Kevin Roose come to mind. As a result, I think the broad perception is that this new kind of intelligence is AGI-adjacent, even if it's clearly not yet AGI. But this is a distinction that is likely lost on just about everyone who doesn't work in or deeply understand technology. I think these companies are pretty happy to leave that misconception as-is. They'd rather the public think these things are AGI-like. The reason I'm splitting hairs here is because this all plays into whatever happens next in terms of public policy/regulations, and I think the current level of understanding outside of our bubble is rather poor. And to bring this full circle, that's why I'm defending the use of scare quotes in this piece. I think they highlight something that we haven't figured out how to talk about accurately yet.