3 ms·

That's like saying "it's funny to me that this baby can't drive a car, but we still call it a 'person'". We've achieved AGI, it's just yet a baby. Only a few y

That's like saying "it's funny to me that this baby can't drive a car, but we still call it a 'person'". We've achieved AGI, it's just yet a baby. Only a few years ago, if you wanted a model that could complete a task, you'd have to train a model specific to that task. GPT-4 can do a large variety of tasks without being specifically trained on them, i.e. it's suitable for a wide range of general tasks. Yeah, it sucks at some of them, but focusing on that is short-sighted. Look at the progress made from just a few years ago and where it's going, especially with multimodality and increased compute power.

kranke155 3y ago
My point is this is still a machine. Running analogies on top of metaphors, you can justify everything. This thing is a machine intelligence. My point is that a machine intelligence to be equivalent to humans in every law is curiously never mentioned, except when it is advantageous to the owners of said machine. Or are we saying that we can't turn off GPT-4 at this point, because following your metaphor, we would be committing murder or abortion? Again, you can't reason using metaphors and inferences and analogies. It's not helpful.
- EnergyAmy 3y ago
  It's pretty obvious that we should be considering whether or not it's ethical to turn off AI. Even if most people think it's OK right now, that will likely change as these models get more capable, exactly similar to the differing opinions on abortion. > except when it is advantageous to the owners of said machine. That's just not true. You're ignoring vast amounts of discussion on the topic, particularly the discussions had when Blake Lemoine claimed that LaMDA was sentient. There's no reason to dismiss all that just because you're dead set on assuming everyone involved in AI is up to no good.

3 ms·

That's like saying "it's funny to me that this baby can't drive a car, but we still call it a 'person'". We've achieved AGI, it's just yet a baby. Only a few y

by EnergyAmy 3y ago

kranke155 3y ago
My point is this is still a machine. Running analogies on top of metaphors, you can justify everything. This thing is a machine intelligence. My point is that a machine intelligence to be equivalent to humans in every law is curiously never mentioned, except when it is advantageous to the owners of said machine. Or are we saying that we can't turn off GPT-4 at this point, because following your metaphor, we would be committing murder or abortion? Again, you can't reason using metaphors and inferences and analogies. It's not helpful.
- EnergyAmy 3y ago
  It's pretty obvious that we should be considering whether or not it's ethical to turn off AI. Even if most people think it's OK right now, that will likely change as these models get more capable, exactly similar to the differing opinions on abortion. > except when it is advantageous to the owners of said machine. That's just not true. You're ignoring vast amounts of discussion on the topic, particularly the discussions had when Blake Lemoine claimed that LaMDA was sentient. There's no reason to dismiss all that just because you're dead set on assuming everyone involved in AI is up to no good.