4 ms·

Is there anyone else here who watches this and thinks that the teaching-a-human part is just an inefficient and unnecessary middle step? It gave me the feeling

Is there anyone else here who watches this and thinks that the teaching-a-human part is just an inefficient and unnecessary middle step? It gave me the feeling of dragging people along for no real reason and just waiting for them to catch up. I mean, if the AI already knows all of this, and anyone can ask it, then what's the value of people learning it? I get that this is a fear with AI in general (obsoleting humans). But watching this really crystallizes it somehow.

jimbokun 2y ago
I had the same thought. Sam Altman's intro for GPT-4o was selling all the ways it could help people accomplish tasks. But I could only think, why not just have the AI do the tasks on its own?
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  Exactly. And, I can't help but wonder if there's some sleight of hand here. I mean, to say AI will merely assist is kind of an ideal way to allay concerns that humans will lose relevance. Delay the panic until it's absolutely obvious where we are. Someone mentioned that Altman's interviews involve him talking a good bit without providing a lot of useful info. Makes sense when you consider that his role is something of a politician. Anyway, for now, the assist idea is somewhat plausible, but with each new version it's less so. I think that's what it is about this video: when you watch someone being taught by AI, it flips the "assist" part on its head. Doesn't make a lot of sense that the AI has to patiently teach people to get them to a place where it can then "assist" them.
- slowmovintarget 2y ago
  It has no will, nor drive, nor intent. It is a tool that must be supplied these things first.
  - andai 2y ago
    But that's a mere engineering problem, not a hard physical constraint.
madarco 2y ago
On the contrary. Unless some AI armageddon happens, humans will be nurtured by AIs like in the movie Wall-E. Totally dependent by it, but a true utopia.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  I honestly can't tell whether this is sarcasm.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
slowmovintarget 2y ago
Say it with me... GPT-4o doesn't know anything. It uses statistics to generate what is likely to be a match, or to categorize what it sees or hears. When it gets it wrong, it doesn't "know" it's wrong until you tell it. Then it tries to generate a statistically likely correction. It's really good at this. But it doesn't understand, it doesn't reason. It just picks the next token like it's been trained to do. The upshot is, unless you already know how and why the generated text is incorrect, you'll be fooled into thinking it's the answer.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >Say it with me... There's no need for the condescension, even if you had actually understood the point. >It uses statistics to generate... I assume most here understand your rudimentary description of how GPT works. My point assumes that LLMs and/or some augmented form of the same continue to improve. If, OTOH, the best we ever do is the current generation of models that hallucinate, require babysitting, and never reach or exceed human capabilities, then my point (and >90% of the discussion around AI's future impact) are non-issues. I suppose I assumed that was obvious.

jimbokun 2y ago

I had the same thought. Sam Altman's intro for GPT-4o was selling all the ways it could help people accomplish tasks. But I could only think, why not just have the AI do the tasks on its own?

unclebucknasty 2y ago
Exactly. And, I can't help but wonder if there's some sleight of hand here. I mean, to say AI will merely assist is kind of an ideal way to allay concerns that humans will lose relevance. Delay the panic until it's absolutely obvious where we are. Someone mentioned that Altman's interviews involve him talking a good bit without providing a lot of useful info. Makes sense when you consider that his role is something of a politician. Anyway, for now, the assist idea is somewhat plausible, but with each new version it's less so. I think that's what it is about this video: when you watch someone being taught by AI, it flips the "assist" part on its head. Doesn't make a lot of sense that the AI has to patiently teach people to get them to a place where it can then "assist" them.
slowmovintarget 2y ago
It has no will, nor drive, nor intent. It is a tool that must be supplied these things first.
- andai 2y ago
  But that's a mere engineering problem, not a hard physical constraint.

madarco 2y ago

On the contrary. Unless some AI armageddon happens, humans will be nurtured by AIs like in the movie Wall-E. Totally dependent by it, but a true utopia.

unclebucknasty 2y ago
I honestly can't tell whether this is sarcasm.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

slowmovintarget 2y ago

Say it with me... GPT-4o doesn't know anything. It uses statistics to generate what is likely to be a match, or to categorize what it sees or hears. When it gets it wrong, it doesn't "know" it's wrong until you tell it. Then it tries to generate a statistically likely correction. It's really good at this. But it doesn't understand, it doesn't reason. It just picks the next token like it's been trained to do. The upshot is, unless you already know how and why the generated text is incorrect, you'll be fooled into thinking it's the answer.

unclebucknasty 2y ago
>Say it with me... There's no need for the condescension, even if you had actually understood the point. >It uses statistics to generate... I assume most here understand your rudimentary description of how GPT works. My point assumes that LLMs and/or some augmented form of the same continue to improve. If, OTOH, the best we ever do is the current generation of models that hallucinate, require babysitting, and never reach or exceed human capabilities, then my point (and >90% of the discussion around AI's future impact) are non-issues. I suppose I assumed that was obvious.