3 ms·

> A chief goal of artificial intelligence is to build machines that think like people. Maybe that's their goal. But for many users of AI, the goal is to have

by hilux 3y ago

> A chief goal of artificial intelligence is to build machines that think like people. Maybe that's their goal. But for many users of AI, the goal is to have easy and affordable access to a machine that, for some input (perhaps in a tightly constrained domain), gives us the output that we would expect from a high-functioning human being. When I use ChatGPT as a coding helper, I really don't care about its "theory of mind." And its insights are already as deep (actually more deep) as I get from most humans I ask for help. Real humans, not Don Knuth, who is unavailable to help me.

marmaduke 3y ago
> insights are already as deep (actually more deep) as I get from most humans I ask for help This was my thought as well. But then I figured if I can't get someone to give me thoughtful feedback, I might have bigger problems to solve.
- szundi 3y ago
  Or rather 30 different people on 30 different topics
krainboltgreene 3y ago
Look this is the only time I'll engage in this sort of discussion on HN[1], but first Donald Knuth is a real Human and it's extremely weird to position world class experts as something otherworldly. Second, suppose you got what you wished for (you used the "us" pronoun), is that not a sentient mind that you're forcing to do your labour? Does that not raise a ton of red flags in your ethics? [1] normally I find HN discussions about what if chatGPT is human or "humans are just autocompletes" to be highschool-level scifi and cringe respectively
- hilux 3y ago
  I don't understand your objection about Don Knuth. I'm well aware who he is. My point is that I don't have access to that kind of insightful human helper. So I "settle" for ChatGPT. And by "us" I mean "those of us who choose to use ChatGPT," and not that I was forcing you to use ChatGPT. It's true, I don't morally object to asking ChatGPT to "do my labour." It raises no red flag for me. (Okay, there's the IP red-flag about how ChatGPT was trained, but I don't think that's what you mean.)
- mr_toad 3y ago
  > is that not a sentient mind that you're forcing to do your labour? Does that not raise a ton of red flags in your ethics? Maybe and maybe not. Being sentient or even sapient doesn’t mean it has human emotions, feelings or motivations. You have to be very careful when ascribing naturally evolved emotions and motivations to something that is not a naturally evolved intellect.
  - creer 3y ago
    Does it need "human emotions, feelings etc" to "deserve" protection and status? Human society answered no a long time ago. But still it will be interesting to see what protections are granted to entities that are unarguably also machines.
dontupvoteme 3y ago
Telling it to write like (or outright that it is) Knuth might just get it to write more efficient algorithms as it were. IIRC one of the prompting techniques developed this year was to ask the model who are some world class experts in a field and then have it write as if it was that group collaborating on the topic.

by hilux 3y ago

marmaduke 3y ago

> insights are already as deep (actually more deep) as I get from most humans I ask for help This was my thought as well. But then I figured if I can't get someone to give me thoughtful feedback, I might have bigger problems to solve.

szundi 3y ago
Or rather 30 different people on 30 different topics

krainboltgreene 3y ago

Look this is the only time I'll engage in this sort of discussion on HN[1], but first Donald Knuth is a real Human and it's extremely weird to position world class experts as something otherworldly. Second, suppose you got what you wished for (you used the "us" pronoun), is that not a sentient mind that you're forcing to do your labour? Does that not raise a ton of red flags in your ethics? [1] normally I find HN discussions about what if chatGPT is human or "humans are just autocompletes" to be highschool-level scifi and cringe respectively

hilux 3y ago
I don't understand your objection about Don Knuth. I'm well aware who he is. My point is that I don't have access to that kind of insightful human helper. So I "settle" for ChatGPT. And by "us" I mean "those of us who choose to use ChatGPT," and not that I was forcing you to use ChatGPT. It's true, I don't morally object to asking ChatGPT to "do my labour." It raises no red flag for me. (Okay, there's the IP red-flag about how ChatGPT was trained, but I don't think that's what you mean.)
mr_toad 3y ago
> is that not a sentient mind that you're forcing to do your labour? Does that not raise a ton of red flags in your ethics? Maybe and maybe not. Being sentient or even sapient doesn’t mean it has human emotions, feelings or motivations. You have to be very careful when ascribing naturally evolved emotions and motivations to something that is not a naturally evolved intellect.
- creer 3y ago
  Does it need "human emotions, feelings etc" to "deserve" protection and status? Human society answered no a long time ago. But still it will be interesting to see what protections are granted to entities that are unarguably also machines.

dontupvoteme 3y ago

Telling it to write like (or outright that it is) Knuth might just get it to write more efficient algorithms as it were. IIRC one of the prompting techniques developed this year was to ask the model who are some world class experts in a field and then have it write as if it was that group collaborating on the topic.