5 ms·

I like to be very blunt with people who don't know anything about this stuff by just saying "AI doesn't exist." There is nothing intelligent about "AI," and peo

I like to be very blunt with people who don't know anything about this stuff by just saying "AI doesn't exist." There is nothing intelligent about "AI," and people need to know that.

littlestymaar 3y ago
Ever since ChatGPT has become mainstream, I've talked about it to my non-tech friends as “simulated intelligence” instead of “artificial ingelligence” to emphasize that it is not intelligence, it is just simulating intelligence, and sometimes the simulation is realistic and sometimes it's far off.
- ImHereToVote 3y ago
  This seems like a very slippery concept. You could say the same thing about many human beings. That they simply regurgitate opinions to fit into a certain role and aren't actually utilizing intelligence when making decisions. It's almost as if there is some sort of Platonic ideal of problem solving that we call intelligence, something you can strive for but also someone can poke holes in. Why not simply use an IQ test? The various multimodal systems coming down the pipe will either improve on taking IQ tests, or stall. If they improve, then they gain more intelligence. If they stall, then they aren't truly intelligent. Just glorified goal to action mappers.
  - allen_berg 3y ago
    What about unintelligent humans is not an argument against stating that there is not intelligence in "artificial intelligence".
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > You could say the same thing about many human beings. Humans are, by the mere definition of the word, “intelligent”. AI are doing a simulation of that intelligence, the same way a weather model is a simulation of the weather whereas the actual weather isn't a simulation of anything. That doesn't make weather models useless, far from that, but if you trust them blindly when hiking in the mountains, you may end up in a bad place. > Why not simply use an IQ test? IQ tests are very limited measurements of what intelligence actually is. Using a thermometer isn't a good way to access the trustfulness of a weather model.
    - logicchains 3y ago
      >Humans are, by the mere definition of the word, “intelligent”. Humans are absolutely not intelligent by definition, that's why words like "unintelligent", "dumb" and "stupid" exist.
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        You're using adjectives that are relative between humans. The dumbest human is still far more intelligent than any other animal on earth, by construction of our own definition of intelligence.
        ben_w 3y ago
        There have been many definitions of intelligence, some of which have been constructed such that they had only specific races[0] be classified as intelligent, while others (the slaves) were classified as unintelligent. Of the tests/definitions that separate humans from non-human animals, the three I grew up with were language, tool use, and the mirror test. AI can definitely do the first two — LLMs know far more languages, natural and programming, than I do — and I don't know either way about the third for reasons related to why I am also dubious about how effective it is really. IMO those tests are not great, and we don't have a meaningful way to put humans and dolphins on the same scale for the same reason you can't meaningfully put a 747 and a Harley Davidson on the same scale for vehicle goodness. [0] never mind that "race" isn't a real thing
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        I agree with all you're saying. My point is just that we explicitly define intelligence as things humans excel at and other beings don't (and you are right to point out that in the − not so distant − past, the distinctions wasn't so much humans vs other beings but white aristocracy vs other humans). And we've been doing the same with AI for a while: beating a chess grand master would have been considered an unambiguous proof of intelligence 50 years ago, now I don't think anyone would argue Stockfish is actually intelligent.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > That they simply regurgitate opinions to fit into a certain role and aren't actually utilizing intelligence when making decisions. Today I realised there's a superficial similarity between mode collapse and confirmation bias. Anyone know if it's just superficial, or if there's a deeper connection? > Why not simply use an IQ test? The various multimodal systems coming down the pipe will either improve on taking IQ tests, or stall. If they improve, then they gain more intelligence. If they stall, then they aren't truly intelligent. Just glorified goal to action mappers. It's unclear how useful IQ tests are; there are entirely functional human communities whose members on average perform as badly on some IQ tests as people who need a full-time caretaker because they lack them mental capacity to get dressed or prepare breakfast without assistance. Change the test, those communities suddenly look smart and it's us who look dumb. The tests have been improved since then, but we've also got problems in the opposite direction — all of the informal measures of intelligence I had growing up are skills where existing AI is now somewhere between a good student[0] (law, medicine, advanced maths, programming) and wildly superhuman (chess skill, languages spoken, arithmetic[1]). [0] emphasis on "student": you wouldn't want to be treated or represented by a fresh graduate if you could afford better, would you? Nevertheless, if someone told you they had a law degree and a medical degree, this would be considered a sign they were very smart. [1] when computers were new, they were called "electronic brains"… or rather, when digital computers were new, as the name "computer" was taken from a job that used to be performed by humans.
ben_w 3y ago
I on the other hand like to retort with two quotes: "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than whether a submarine can swim." - Edsger Dijkstra "Deep Blue was intelligent the way your programmable alarm clock is intelligent. Not that losing to a $10 million alarm clock made me feel any better." ― Garry Kasparov I don't care if a statistical model feels anything when analysing pictures of weird lumps to diagnose cancer, I care if it's accurate. I don't care if a statistical model has hopes and dreams when generating the text of a computer program one textual token at a time, I care if this is risking my future employment. I don't care if a statistical model has created the same abstraction of the economy that I have when giving me financial advice, I care that it's got a high rate of return at low risk. I don't care if a statistical model wants to win at chess, or at Go, or at Diplomacy, or at poker, or at paperclip maximisation… I will care if someone figures out how to do brain uploads, but that's a question for the future.

I like to be very blunt with people who don't know anything about this stuff by just saying "AI doesn't exist." There is nothing intelligent about "AI," and people need to know that.

littlestymaar 3y ago

Ever since ChatGPT has become mainstream, I've talked about it to my non-tech friends as “simulated intelligence” instead of “artificial ingelligence” to emphasize that it is not intelligence, it is just simulating intelligence, and sometimes the simulation is realistic and sometimes it's far off.

ImHereToVote 3y ago
This seems like a very slippery concept. You could say the same thing about many human beings. That they simply regurgitate opinions to fit into a certain role and aren't actually utilizing intelligence when making decisions. It's almost as if there is some sort of Platonic ideal of problem solving that we call intelligence, something you can strive for but also someone can poke holes in. Why not simply use an IQ test? The various multimodal systems coming down the pipe will either improve on taking IQ tests, or stall. If they improve, then they gain more intelligence. If they stall, then they aren't truly intelligent. Just glorified goal to action mappers.
- allen_berg 3y ago
  What about unintelligent humans is not an argument against stating that there is not intelligence in "artificial intelligence".
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > You could say the same thing about many human beings. Humans are, by the mere definition of the word, “intelligent”. AI are doing a simulation of that intelligence, the same way a weather model is a simulation of the weather whereas the actual weather isn't a simulation of anything. That doesn't make weather models useless, far from that, but if you trust them blindly when hiking in the mountains, you may end up in a bad place. > Why not simply use an IQ test? IQ tests are very limited measurements of what intelligence actually is. Using a thermometer isn't a good way to access the trustfulness of a weather model.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    >Humans are, by the mere definition of the word, “intelligent”. Humans are absolutely not intelligent by definition, that's why words like "unintelligent", "dumb" and "stupid" exist.
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      You're using adjectives that are relative between humans. The dumbest human is still far more intelligent than any other animal on earth, by construction of our own definition of intelligence.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        There have been many definitions of intelligence, some of which have been constructed such that they had only specific races[0] be classified as intelligent, while others (the slaves) were classified as unintelligent. Of the tests/definitions that separate humans from non-human animals, the three I grew up with were language, tool use, and the mirror test. AI can definitely do the first two — LLMs know far more languages, natural and programming, than I do — and I don't know either way about the third for reasons related to why I am also dubious about how effective it is really. IMO those tests are not great, and we don't have a meaningful way to put humans and dolphins on the same scale for the same reason you can't meaningfully put a 747 and a Harley Davidson on the same scale for vehicle goodness. [0] never mind that "race" isn't a real thing
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        I agree with all you're saying. My point is just that we explicitly define intelligence as things humans excel at and other beings don't (and you are right to point out that in the − not so distant − past, the distinctions wasn't so much humans vs other beings but white aristocracy vs other humans). And we've been doing the same with AI for a while: beating a chess grand master would have been considered an unambiguous proof of intelligence 50 years ago, now I don't think anyone would argue Stockfish is actually intelligent.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > That they simply regurgitate opinions to fit into a certain role and aren't actually utilizing intelligence when making decisions. Today I realised there's a superficial similarity between mode collapse and confirmation bias. Anyone know if it's just superficial, or if there's a deeper connection? > Why not simply use an IQ test? The various multimodal systems coming down the pipe will either improve on taking IQ tests, or stall. If they improve, then they gain more intelligence. If they stall, then they aren't truly intelligent. Just glorified goal to action mappers. It's unclear how useful IQ tests are; there are entirely functional human communities whose members on average perform as badly on some IQ tests as people who need a full-time caretaker because they lack them mental capacity to get dressed or prepare breakfast without assistance. Change the test, those communities suddenly look smart and it's us who look dumb. The tests have been improved since then, but we've also got problems in the opposite direction — all of the informal measures of intelligence I had growing up are skills where existing AI is now somewhere between a good student[0] (law, medicine, advanced maths, programming) and wildly superhuman (chess skill, languages spoken, arithmetic[1]). [0] emphasis on "student": you wouldn't want to be treated or represented by a fresh graduate if you could afford better, would you? Nevertheless, if someone told you they had a law degree and a medical degree, this would be considered a sign they were very smart. [1] when computers were new, they were called "electronic brains"… or rather, when digital computers were new, as the name "computer" was taken from a job that used to be performed by humans.

ben_w 3y ago

I on the other hand like to retort with two quotes: "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than whether a submarine can swim." - Edsger Dijkstra "Deep Blue was intelligent the way your programmable alarm clock is intelligent. Not that losing to a $10 million alarm clock made me feel any better." ― Garry Kasparov I don't care if a statistical model feels anything when analysing pictures of weird lumps to diagnose cancer, I care if it's accurate. I don't care if a statistical model has hopes and dreams when generating the text of a computer program one textual token at a time, I care if this is risking my future employment. I don't care if a statistical model has created the same abstraction of the economy that I have when giving me financial advice, I care that it's got a high rate of return at low risk. I don't care if a statistical model wants to win at chess, or at Go, or at Diplomacy, or at poker, or at paperclip maximisation… I will care if someone figures out how to do brain uploads, but that's a question for the future.