4 ms·

True, but that's also kind of the point - we have grown computers from adding number (calculator 1960s capability) to being able to beat humans at chess (1997)

by Closi 2y ago

True, but that's also kind of the point - we have grown computers from adding number (calculator 1960s capability) to being able to beat humans at chess (1997) to beating humans at jeopardy (2013) to breaking the turing test (2020+), LLM's that can write code (and test it themselves!), and even creating art and music. So IMO if we are saying that "there's no evidence that computers will have human level intelligence" we need to take a step back and define what that means - because if you were sitting in the 1960's and you defined it, a modern LLM may very well have already met that definition.

jb1991 2y ago
You can't define intelligence by how people in any one point in time would have responded to it. A calculator is AI to people of the 19th century, but not to us. It's only in the passing of time, if something that is thought to be intelligent still seems intelligent long after it is introduced, that we might have a contender.
- Closi 2y ago
  A moving definition of intelligence isn't particularly useful though if we are trying to establish if something classifies as intelligent or not. But I think we have at least moved from a state of computers that are less 'intelligent' than a fish, to more 'intelligent' than a dog (assuming by intelligent we mean 'ability to solve problems, and to apply knowledge to novel situations' - i.e. while GPT-4 will make illegal chess moves, it would make less illegal moves than a well-trained dog). We have moved that quickly from fish to dog, so we need to be careful to not let hubris make us think we are that much more special! Dog-intelligence to human-intelligence is a big leap, but maybe not as much of a leap as fish to dog? Or at least dog to ape and ape to human?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
wizzwizz4 2y ago
> to breaking the turing test (2020+) You mean 1967, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA > However, many early users were convinced of ELIZA's intelligence and understanding, despite Weizenbaum's insistence to the contrary.
- ben_w 2y ago
  "Does X look like Y" is always a continum. In test environments, players are judged human with these rates: * Real humans 66% * GPT-4: 49.7% * ELIZA: 22% * GPT-3.5: 20% https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.20216 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.20216 (I'm rather surprised by ELIZA beating 3.5, as were the researchers). Turing's introduction of the test, was a 70% chance of spotting the AI after 5 minutes.

by Closi 2y ago

jb1991 2y ago

You can't define intelligence by how people in any one point in time would have responded to it. A calculator is AI to people of the 19th century, but not to us. It's only in the passing of time, if something that is thought to be intelligent still seems intelligent long after it is introduced, that we might have a contender.

Closi 2y ago
A moving definition of intelligence isn't particularly useful though if we are trying to establish if something classifies as intelligent or not. But I think we have at least moved from a state of computers that are less 'intelligent' than a fish, to more 'intelligent' than a dog (assuming by intelligent we mean 'ability to solve problems, and to apply knowledge to novel situations' - i.e. while GPT-4 will make illegal chess moves, it would make less illegal moves than a well-trained dog). We have moved that quickly from fish to dog, so we need to be careful to not let hubris make us think we are that much more special! Dog-intelligence to human-intelligence is a big leap, but maybe not as much of a leap as fish to dog? Or at least dog to ape and ape to human?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

wizzwizz4 2y ago

> to breaking the turing test (2020+) You mean 1967, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA > However, many early users were convinced of ELIZA's intelligence and understanding, despite Weizenbaum's insistence to the contrary.

ben_w 2y ago
"Does X look like Y" is always a continum. In test environments, players are judged human with these rates: * Real humans 66% * GPT-4: 49.7% * ELIZA: 22% * GPT-3.5: 20% https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.20216 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.20216 (I'm rather surprised by ELIZA beating 3.5, as were the researchers). Turing's introduction of the test, was a 70% chance of spotting the AI after 5 minutes.