3 ms·

> GPT-4 is an AGI, just a very bad one. Then stop selling it as a tool to replace humans. A fast moving car breaking through a barrier and flying off the cliff

> GPT-4 is an AGI, just a very bad one. Then stop selling it as a tool to replace humans. A fast moving car breaking through a barrier and flying off the cliff could be called "an airborne means of transportation, just a very bad one" yet nobody is suggesting it should replace school busses if only we could add longer wings to it. What the LLM community refuses to see is that there is a limit to the patience and the financing the rest of the world will grant you before you're told, "it doesn't work mate." > So at what point does a human go from not generally intelligent to generally intelligent? Developmental psychology would be a good place to start looking for answers to this question. Also, forgetting scientific approach and going with common sense, we do not allow young humans to operate complex machinery, decide who is allowed to become a doctor, or go to jail. Intelligence is something that is not equally distributed across the human population and some of us never have much of it, yet we function and have a role in society. Our behaviour, choices, preferences, opinions are not just based on our intelligence, but often on our past experiences and circumstances. It is also not the sole quality we use to compare ourselves against each other. A not very intelligent person is capable of making the right choices (an otherwise obedient soldier refusing to press the button and blow up a building full of children); similarly, a highly intelligent person can become a hard-to-find serial criminal (a gynecologist impregnating his patients). What intelligent and creative people hold against LLMs is not that they replace them, but that they replace them with a shit version of them relegating thousands of years of human progress and creativity to the dustbin of the models and layers of tweaks to the output that still produce unreliable crap. I think the person who wrote this sign summed it up best https://x.com/gvanrossum/status/1802378022361911711 https://x.com/gvanrossum/status/1802378022361911711

bongodongobob 2y ago
In response to the sign: then learn to code or make art that is better than AI art. It's an existential complaint. "Why won't the nerds make something for meeeee." Do it yourself. Make that robot. Sucks to think that you're not that special. Most art isn't. Most music isn't. Any honest artist will agree. Most professional artists are graphic designers, not brilliant once in a generation visionaries. It's the new excuse for starving artists. AI or no, they'd still be unsuccessful. That's the way it's always been.
- earthnail 2y ago
  While that is 100% true, the real problem is that the risk of finding out whether you can make special art has significantly increased. Previously if you didn’t make it as an artist, you could still earn money with other art related tasks - in graphics, many became illustrators. In music, people made music for ads. That plan B is now going away, and a music career will be much more like a sports career: either you make it in football, or you need to find another career where your football skills won’t be very useful. That is obviously scary for many.
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    Artists who make it usually have a legend, a story to tell or be told by their friends, associates, agents, publishers, gallerists, etc. That story has a human dimension that touches the rest of us and we somehow connect to it. Van Gogh cut of his ear, we still keep talking about it and wondering why? There is nothing AI can tell us about itself, its "art". The artistic struggle with AI is not about expressing your vision on a canvas in a way that makes others feel what you want them to feel but about forcing it to generate something it is incapable of generating or programmed not to generate. We got to the point where we are given crayons programmed to not draw the things others do not want them to draw or to draw HR-approved version of what the artist wants to draw. The future is now and it's shit.
    - latexr 2y ago
      Using van Gogh as an example of “artists who make it” is insane. Which I guess is appropriate, because he was literally crazy. He suffered from psychotic episodes and delusions and died from suicide, depressed and in poverty. That’s the opposite of “making it”. It’s zero consolation that people like his work now, he never even knew.
      - surfingdino 2y ago
        > Using van Gogh as an example of “artists who make it” is insane. So is building a tool that will only generate "approved" art. We need to be able to express our idea, feelings, our perception of the world in ways that do not fit corporate standards of text, audio, or visual communication. It's part of being human.
atleastoptimal 2y ago
> What the LLM community refuses to see is that there is a limit to the patience and the financing the rest of the world will grant you before you're told, "it doesn't work mate." The point about LLM's is they may have a lot of drawbacks right now but they're improving at a rapid pace. They already are very useful. There are hundreds of stories coming out of companies effectively leveraging them to replace workers in many natural-language related tasks. They're far more useful than a car that goes off a cliff. Nobody more useful than an LLM is being effectively replaced by an LLM. Those few companies that jump the gun too early are suffering for it. >That sign We already have dishwashers and washing machines. Companies are working on making humanoid robots that can do those things, it's just that it's harder to develop a fully-fledged embodied humanoid than it is to create the diffusion models and LLM's being used today. It's not some conspiracy to let AI do all the fun stuff first. Nobody is preventing anyone from making art or writing poetry. If someone finds value in AI art or writing, either you have to accept that they weren't the audience member you wanted, or you have to accept that your ability to be creative is a learnable algorithm same as anything else.
empath75 2y ago
> Then stop selling it as a tool to replace humans I don't understand why people assume that the purpose of any tool is to "replace humans". Automation doesn't replace humans and never has and never will. It simply does certain tasks that humans used to do, freeing people up to do different tasks. There is not a limited amount of work that can be done, there isn't a limited amount of _creative_ work that can be done. Even if AIs were good enough to do every creative task done by humans today (and they aren't and won't be any time soon), that doesn't mean that humans will have nothing of value to produce, or that humans will have been "replaced". There is always going to be work for humans to do, even in a universe where AI have super human capabilities at all tasks. In particular, human beings strongly value the opinions and creative output of _human beings_ simply for the reason that they are human and similar to them. That will never change, no matter how intelligent that AIs get.
- surfingdino 2y ago
  > I don't understand why people assume that the purpose of any tool is to "replace humans". Because of this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40070566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40070566
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

bongodongobob 2y ago

In response to the sign: then learn to code or make art that is better than AI art. It's an existential complaint. "Why won't the nerds make something for meeeee." Do it yourself. Make that robot. Sucks to think that you're not that special. Most art isn't. Most music isn't. Any honest artist will agree. Most professional artists are graphic designers, not brilliant once in a generation visionaries. It's the new excuse for starving artists. AI or no, they'd still be unsuccessful. That's the way it's always been.

earthnail 2y ago
While that is 100% true, the real problem is that the risk of finding out whether you can make special art has significantly increased. Previously if you didn’t make it as an artist, you could still earn money with other art related tasks - in graphics, many became illustrators. In music, people made music for ads. That plan B is now going away, and a music career will be much more like a sports career: either you make it in football, or you need to find another career where your football skills won’t be very useful. That is obviously scary for many.
- surfingdino 2y ago
  Artists who make it usually have a legend, a story to tell or be told by their friends, associates, agents, publishers, gallerists, etc. That story has a human dimension that touches the rest of us and we somehow connect to it. Van Gogh cut of his ear, we still keep talking about it and wondering why? There is nothing AI can tell us about itself, its "art". The artistic struggle with AI is not about expressing your vision on a canvas in a way that makes others feel what you want them to feel but about forcing it to generate something it is incapable of generating or programmed not to generate. We got to the point where we are given crayons programmed to not draw the things others do not want them to draw or to draw HR-approved version of what the artist wants to draw. The future is now and it's shit.
  - latexr 2y ago
    Using van Gogh as an example of “artists who make it” is insane. Which I guess is appropriate, because he was literally crazy. He suffered from psychotic episodes and delusions and died from suicide, depressed and in poverty. That’s the opposite of “making it”. It’s zero consolation that people like his work now, he never even knew.
    - surfingdino 2y ago
      > Using van Gogh as an example of “artists who make it” is insane. So is building a tool that will only generate "approved" art. We need to be able to express our idea, feelings, our perception of the world in ways that do not fit corporate standards of text, audio, or visual communication. It's part of being human.

atleastoptimal 2y ago

> What the LLM community refuses to see is that there is a limit to the patience and the financing the rest of the world will grant you before you're told, "it doesn't work mate." The point about LLM's is they may have a lot of drawbacks right now but they're improving at a rapid pace. They already are very useful. There are hundreds of stories coming out of companies effectively leveraging them to replace workers in many natural-language related tasks. They're far more useful than a car that goes off a cliff. Nobody more useful than an LLM is being effectively replaced by an LLM. Those few companies that jump the gun too early are suffering for it. >That sign We already have dishwashers and washing machines. Companies are working on making humanoid robots that can do those things, it's just that it's harder to develop a fully-fledged embodied humanoid than it is to create the diffusion models and LLM's being used today. It's not some conspiracy to let AI do all the fun stuff first. Nobody is preventing anyone from making art or writing poetry. If someone finds value in AI art or writing, either you have to accept that they weren't the audience member you wanted, or you have to accept that your ability to be creative is a learnable algorithm same as anything else.

empath75 2y ago

> Then stop selling it as a tool to replace humans I don't understand why people assume that the purpose of any tool is to "replace humans". Automation doesn't replace humans and never has and never will. It simply does certain tasks that humans used to do, freeing people up to do different tasks. There is not a limited amount of work that can be done, there isn't a limited amount of _creative_ work that can be done. Even if AIs were good enough to do every creative task done by humans today (and they aren't and won't be any time soon), that doesn't mean that humans will have nothing of value to produce, or that humans will have been "replaced". There is always going to be work for humans to do, even in a universe where AI have super human capabilities at all tasks. In particular, human beings strongly value the opinions and creative output of _human beings_ simply for the reason that they are human and similar to them. That will never change, no matter how intelligent that AIs get.

surfingdino 2y ago
> I don't understand why people assume that the purpose of any tool is to "replace humans". Because of this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40070566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40070566
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]