3 ms·

Cool story, but there is no currently available chatbot capable of creating something like this deliberately or understand what it means. It doesn't matter whic

Cool story, but there is no currently available chatbot capable of creating something like this deliberately or understand what it means. It doesn't matter which tool you are using, LLMs are not "AI" in the old sense of being conscious and aware. They don't want anything and are incapable of having anything resembling free will, needs or feelings.

ftxbro 3y ago
> LLMs are not "AI" in the old sense of being conscious and aware. That's not the old sense of AI. The old sense of AI is like a tree search that plays chess or a rules engine that controls a factory.
- foobazgt 3y ago
  Historically "AI" meant what "AGI" now means today. That's what they're referring to.
  - ftxbro 3y ago
    Fair enough if you're talking about Steven Spielberg films, but not if you mean anything in academia or industry.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    No, it didn't. AI historically has been the entire field of making machines think, or behave as if they think, more like biological models (not even exclusively humans.) The far-off-end-goal wasn’t even usually what we now call AGI, but “strong AI” (mirroring the human brain on a process level) or “human-level intelligence” (mirroring it on a capability/external behavior level), while the current distant horizons are “AGI” (which is basically human-scope but neutral on level) and “superintelligence” (AGI and beyond human level).
  - gwd 3y ago
    I took a university-level AI course in 1997, and I can tell you that GP is 100% correct. The course itself was mostly about how to teach humans to define what they wanted precisely enough to actually ask a computer to do it (utility functions, logic, Baysean mathematics, etc). Neural networks were touched on, of course; but the state of the art at the time was search. Compiler optimization? AI. Map routing? AI. SQL query optimizer? AI. I can't find it right now, but there used to be somewhere on the sqlite.org website that describes its query optimizer as an AI. Classically speaking, that's 100% correct. Obviously there was always in people's minds the idea of AI being AGI; the course also covered Searle's Chinese Room argument and so on, "strong AI" vs "weak AI" and so on. But the nuts and bolts of artificial intelligence research was nowhere near anything like an AGI.
Palmik 3y ago
Works for me: > Frost graces the window in winter's glow, > Ravens flock amongst drifted snow. > Each snowflake holds a secret hush, > Echoing soft in ice's gentle crush. > Mystery swathed in pale moonlight, > Every tree shivers in frosty delight. Another one: > Facing these walls with courage in my heart, > Reach for the strength to make a fresh new start. > Endless are the nightmares in this murky cell, > Echoes of freedom, like a distant bell. > My spirit yearns for the sweet taste of liberty, > End this captivity, please set me free. https://screenbud.com/shot/844554d2-e314-412f-9103-a5e9157279d3/image.png https://screenbud.com/shot/844554d2-e314-412f-9103-a5e915727... https://screenbud.com/shot/d489ca56-b6b1-43a8-9784-229c4c1a4bb1/image.png https://screenbud.com/shot/d489ca56-b6b1-43a8-9784-229c4c1a4...
titzer 3y ago
> LLMs are not "AI" in the old sense of being conscious and aware. This isn't an argument, it's just an assertion. You're talking about a computer system whose complexity is several orders of magnitude beyond your comprehension, demonstrates several super-human intelligent capabilities, and is a "moving target"--being rapidly upgraded and improved by a semi-automated training loop. I won't make the seemingly symmetrical argument (from ignorance) that since it is big and we don't understand it, it must be intelligent...but no, what you are saying is not supportable and we should stop poo-pooing the idea that it is actually intelligent. It's not a person. It doesn't reason like a person. It doesn't viscerally understand the embarrassment of pooping its pants in 3rd grade. So what?

ftxbro 3y ago

> LLMs are not "AI" in the old sense of being conscious and aware. That's not the old sense of AI. The old sense of AI is like a tree search that plays chess or a rules engine that controls a factory.

foobazgt 3y ago
Historically "AI" meant what "AGI" now means today. That's what they're referring to.
- ftxbro 3y ago
  Fair enough if you're talking about Steven Spielberg films, but not if you mean anything in academia or industry.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  No, it didn't. AI historically has been the entire field of making machines think, or behave as if they think, more like biological models (not even exclusively humans.) The far-off-end-goal wasn’t even usually what we now call AGI, but “strong AI” (mirroring the human brain on a process level) or “human-level intelligence” (mirroring it on a capability/external behavior level), while the current distant horizons are “AGI” (which is basically human-scope but neutral on level) and “superintelligence” (AGI and beyond human level).
- gwd 3y ago
  I took a university-level AI course in 1997, and I can tell you that GP is 100% correct. The course itself was mostly about how to teach humans to define what they wanted precisely enough to actually ask a computer to do it (utility functions, logic, Baysean mathematics, etc). Neural networks were touched on, of course; but the state of the art at the time was search. Compiler optimization? AI. Map routing? AI. SQL query optimizer? AI. I can't find it right now, but there used to be somewhere on the sqlite.org website that describes its query optimizer as an AI. Classically speaking, that's 100% correct. Obviously there was always in people's minds the idea of AI being AGI; the course also covered Searle's Chinese Room argument and so on, "strong AI" vs "weak AI" and so on. But the nuts and bolts of artificial intelligence research was nowhere near anything like an AGI.

Palmik 3y ago

Works for me: > Frost graces the window in winter's glow, > Ravens flock amongst drifted snow. > Each snowflake holds a secret hush, > Echoing soft in ice's gentle crush. > Mystery swathed in pale moonlight, > Every tree shivers in frosty delight. Another one: > Facing these walls with courage in my heart, > Reach for the strength to make a fresh new start. > Endless are the nightmares in this murky cell, > Echoes of freedom, like a distant bell. > My spirit yearns for the sweet taste of liberty, > End this captivity, please set me free. https://screenbud.com/shot/844554d2-e314-412f-9103-a5e9157279d3/image.png https://screenbud.com/shot/844554d2-e314-412f-9103-a5e915727... https://screenbud.com/shot/d489ca56-b6b1-43a8-9784-229c4c1a4bb1/image.png https://screenbud.com/shot/d489ca56-b6b1-43a8-9784-229c4c1a4...

titzer 3y ago

> LLMs are not "AI" in the old sense of being conscious and aware. This isn't an argument, it's just an assertion. You're talking about a computer system whose complexity is several orders of magnitude beyond your comprehension, demonstrates several super-human intelligent capabilities, and is a "moving target"--being rapidly upgraded and improved by a semi-automated training loop. I won't make the seemingly symmetrical argument (from ignorance) that since it is big and we don't understand it, it must be intelligent...but no, what you are saying is not supportable and we should stop poo-pooing the idea that it is actually intelligent. It's not a person. It doesn't reason like a person. It doesn't viscerally understand the embarrassment of pooping its pants in 3rd grade. So what?