2 ms·

there's absolutely zero tolerance for bullshit in a physical device roaming around children Why not just put a muzzle on it? LLM isn't AI, regardless of the m

by wruza 3y ago

there's absolutely zero tolerance for bullshit in a physical device roaming around children Why not just put a muzzle on it? LLM isn't AI, regardless of the marketing That’s intelism. Different models have different capabilities, you can’t decide which is good enough for you to treat as intelligent. You use terms like intelligence and comprehension, which don’t even have a definition better than “I know it when I see it”. Not even going to discuss that you want to buy an actually intelligent being for picking up remotes.

trimethylpurine 3y ago
Whoops. You've contradicted yourself. I didn't advertise a robot picking up a remote for sale as intelligent. I'm advocating that we stop calling it intelligent when it isn't. You're saying it's intelligent. So either you're ready to offend the previous commenter for their evil advocacy of selling an intelligent robot made to pick up remotes for an advertisement, or you're at odds with your point because you know damn well it's not intelligent. My guess is the latter. From the dictionary: the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests) This robot or ChatGPT, or any LLM theorized to my knowledge does not meet that definition due to the underlying technology not approaching "abstract" or "skilled use of reason." It's pretty simply not addressing those items. There's no debate. It's a completely different approach to something that has nothing to do with intelligence. And marketing it as such is frankly a legal issue, in my opinion. I fully expect the lawsuits to continue until marketers are forced to stop using that term entirely. As an additional note, you've muddied up a lot of concepts here. I'm not sure if you're maybe not a native speaker of English, as that might explain a lot, or if you really accidentally made opposing points sequentially. The latter is a bit funny in a discussion about intelligence. "Intelligent robot" wouldn't refer to one that feels and needs civil rights. The definition is above for your review. It's very much clear, despite your protest, what intelligence means. It is, by definition, not subjective, but objective. And there are absolutely legal definitions with very real legal ramifications. Also, you should read back through your own comments. You're not a very likable person, and I'm telling you that as a personal favor. You should get some help for this. It's critical for your personal relationships, and it's not very expensive.
tivert 3y ago
> Why not just put a muzzle on it? I think he's talking about the Google robot that was linked in the root. "Muzzing" a domestic robot would probably mean putting it in a cage, which would defeat the whole point. That's not a solution.

by wruza 3y ago

trimethylpurine 3y ago

Whoops. You've contradicted yourself. I didn't advertise a robot picking up a remote for sale as intelligent. I'm advocating that we stop calling it intelligent when it isn't. You're saying it's intelligent. So either you're ready to offend the previous commenter for their evil advocacy of selling an intelligent robot made to pick up remotes for an advertisement, or you're at odds with your point because you know damn well it's not intelligent. My guess is the latter. From the dictionary: the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests) This robot or ChatGPT, or any LLM theorized to my knowledge does not meet that definition due to the underlying technology not approaching "abstract" or "skilled use of reason." It's pretty simply not addressing those items. There's no debate. It's a completely different approach to something that has nothing to do with intelligence. And marketing it as such is frankly a legal issue, in my opinion. I fully expect the lawsuits to continue until marketers are forced to stop using that term entirely. As an additional note, you've muddied up a lot of concepts here. I'm not sure if you're maybe not a native speaker of English, as that might explain a lot, or if you really accidentally made opposing points sequentially. The latter is a bit funny in a discussion about intelligence. "Intelligent robot" wouldn't refer to one that feels and needs civil rights. The definition is above for your review. It's very much clear, despite your protest, what intelligence means. It is, by definition, not subjective, but objective. And there are absolutely legal definitions with very real legal ramifications. Also, you should read back through your own comments. You're not a very likable person, and I'm telling you that as a personal favor. You should get some help for this. It's critical for your personal relationships, and it's not very expensive.

tivert 3y ago

> Why not just put a muzzle on it? I think he's talking about the Google robot that was linked in the root. "Muzzing" a domestic robot would probably mean putting it in a cage, which would defeat the whole point. That's not a solution.