3 ms·

it’s harder than we thought so we leveraged machine learning to grow it, rather than creating it symbolically. The leaps in the last 5 years are far beyond anyt

it’s harder than we thought so we leveraged machine learning to grow it, rather than creating it symbolically. The leaps in the last 5 years are far beyond anything in the prior half century, and make predictions of near term AGI much more than a “boy who cries wolf” scenario to anyone really paying attention. I don’t understand how your second paragraph follows. It just seems to be whining that text and art generative models are easier than a fully fledged servant humanoid, which seems like a natural consequence of training data availability and deployment cost.

CRConrad 2y ago
> I don’t understand how your second paragraph follows. It just seems to be whining that text and art generative models are easier than a fully fledged servant humanoid, which seems like a natural consequence of training data availability and deployment cost. No, it's pointing out that "text and art generative models" are far less useful [1] than machines that would be just as little smarter at boring ordinary work, to relieve real normal people from drudgery. I find it rather fascinating how one could not understand that. ___ [1]: At least to humanity as a whole, as opposed to Silicon Valley moguls, oligarchs, VC-funded snake-oil salesmen, and other assorted "tech-bros" and sociopaths.
- atleastoptimal 2y ago
  > No, it's pointing out that "text and art generative models" are far less useful [1] than machines that would be just as little smarter at boring ordinary work, to relieve real normal people from drudgery. That makes no sense. Is alphafold less useful than a minimum wage worker because alphafold can't do dishes? The past decades of machine learning have revealed that the visual-spatial capacities that are commonplace to humans are difficult to replicate artificially. This doesn't mean the things which AI can do well are necessarily less useful than the simple hand-eye coordination that are beyond their current means. Intelligence and usefulness isn't a single dimension.
  - GOD_Over_Djinn 2y ago
    > Is alphafold less useful than a minimum wage worker because alphafold can't do dishes? To the average person, the answer is a resounding “yes”.
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      Thanks, saved me writing the exact same thing.

CRConrad 2y ago

> I don’t understand how your second paragraph follows. It just seems to be whining that text and art generative models are easier than a fully fledged servant humanoid, which seems like a natural consequence of training data availability and deployment cost. No, it's pointing out that "text and art generative models" are far less useful [1] than machines that would be just as little smarter at boring ordinary work, to relieve real normal people from drudgery. I find it rather fascinating how one could not understand that. ___ [1]: At least to humanity as a whole, as opposed to Silicon Valley moguls, oligarchs, VC-funded snake-oil salesmen, and other assorted "tech-bros" and sociopaths.

atleastoptimal 2y ago
> No, it's pointing out that "text and art generative models" are far less useful [1] than machines that would be just as little smarter at boring ordinary work, to relieve real normal people from drudgery. That makes no sense. Is alphafold less useful than a minimum wage worker because alphafold can't do dishes? The past decades of machine learning have revealed that the visual-spatial capacities that are commonplace to humans are difficult to replicate artificially. This doesn't mean the things which AI can do well are necessarily less useful than the simple hand-eye coordination that are beyond their current means. Intelligence and usefulness isn't a single dimension.
- GOD_Over_Djinn 2y ago
  > Is alphafold less useful than a minimum wage worker because alphafold can't do dishes? To the average person, the answer is a resounding “yes”.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    Thanks, saved me writing the exact same thing.