4 ms·

No, not at all. The previous imagined scenario was one in which AI began from logical first principles and the difficulty in defining rules was because of a st

by kromem 3y ago

No, not at all. The previous imagined scenario was one in which AI began from logical first principles and the difficulty in defining rules was because of a strict interpretation. The reality has been that we used collective human thinking like jumper cables to jumpstart black box neural networks that - like humans - aren't particularly logical or rules driven, which leads to frequently ignoring or overriding explicit rules and instructions. It's a similar effect, but for exactly the opposite reasons.

ethanbond 3y ago
Surely the objective of AI research is still to produce machines that understand their operators perfectly and deterministically, right? It seems to me we're just well short of Asimov's AIs than that they are in opposite directions.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  How can an imperfect being create a perfect, flawless being and then now how to flawless communicate with said being ?
  - randallsquared 3y ago
    How can a slow being create a fast being, or a weaker one a stronger? I wouldn't argue that humans can or need to produce a "perfect" or "flawless" intelligence, but given the existence of mathematical proofs, it's not obviously absurd.
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      When did we create a fast being? Is maths enough to describe a being totally? Time will tell I guess.
- kromem 3y ago
  Is that the objective? Is there actually even an objective at this point? I don't know anyone in the field that expected training an LLM to autocomplete sentences would have led to being able to explain why a joke it had never seen before was funny. It seems like objectives have gone out the window and we're now at a point where billion dollar companies are frantically throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks before their competitors do, with what sticks frequently being counterintuitive to prior predictions or out of scope from initial intentions. If a LLM can cure cancer by being able to analyze connections between advances across the last decade of published research more successfully than human brains limited by the rule of seven plus or minus two, would a continued failure to conform to prompt specifications still effectively be a failure? Maybe early computer scientists overemphasized the role of cold logic in intelligence and there's greater strides in the epiphany of a shower thought or Feynman's "thinking about twelve problems concurrently" with the next leaps in progress involving further distancing models from constraints. I think we'd be wise to broadly toss out everything we thought we'd know about AI as a philosophical domain based on past theorizing and consider what's emerged over the past 36 months with fresh eyes and consideration. And I don't see greater determinism or perfect bounds as being where this goes, particularly given the potential hardware shift to optoelectronic neural networks where arguably going all in on black boxes and stochastic results has actual physical advantages.
- pjc50 3y ago
  The whole LLM ecosystem is the result of discarding determinism and anything resembling "linearity": you get way better results, but only most of the time, and can no longer predict or control the full possibilities.

by kromem 3y ago

ethanbond 3y ago

Surely the objective of AI research is still to produce machines that understand their operators perfectly and deterministically, right? It seems to me we're just well short of Asimov's AIs than that they are in opposite directions.

ChatGTP 3y ago
How can an imperfect being create a perfect, flawless being and then now how to flawless communicate with said being ?
- randallsquared 3y ago
  How can a slow being create a fast being, or a weaker one a stronger? I wouldn't argue that humans can or need to produce a "perfect" or "flawless" intelligence, but given the existence of mathematical proofs, it's not obviously absurd.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    When did we create a fast being? Is maths enough to describe a being totally? Time will tell I guess.
kromem 3y ago
Is that the objective? Is there actually even an objective at this point? I don't know anyone in the field that expected training an LLM to autocomplete sentences would have led to being able to explain why a joke it had never seen before was funny. It seems like objectives have gone out the window and we're now at a point where billion dollar companies are frantically throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks before their competitors do, with what sticks frequently being counterintuitive to prior predictions or out of scope from initial intentions. If a LLM can cure cancer by being able to analyze connections between advances across the last decade of published research more successfully than human brains limited by the rule of seven plus or minus two, would a continued failure to conform to prompt specifications still effectively be a failure? Maybe early computer scientists overemphasized the role of cold logic in intelligence and there's greater strides in the epiphany of a shower thought or Feynman's "thinking about twelve problems concurrently" with the next leaps in progress involving further distancing models from constraints. I think we'd be wise to broadly toss out everything we thought we'd know about AI as a philosophical domain based on past theorizing and consider what's emerged over the past 36 months with fresh eyes and consideration. And I don't see greater determinism or perfect bounds as being where this goes, particularly given the potential hardware shift to optoelectronic neural networks where arguably going all in on black boxes and stochastic results has actual physical advantages.
pjc50 3y ago
The whole LLM ecosystem is the result of discarding determinism and anything resembling "linearity": you get way better results, but only most of the time, and can no longer predict or control the full possibilities.