4 ms·

That AI isn't human intelligent is already conceded in the name AI. Not that any doomer is brave enough to set forth a working definition of intelligence, under

That AI isn't human intelligent is already conceded in the name AI. Not that any doomer is brave enough to set forth a working definition of intelligence, understanding, or reason sans human to debate. Doomers just say "I've calculated there is incalculable risk to wonkyAI of today and workingAI of tomorrow" and declare themselves above it. It is far better a human get instant error-prone assistance on all previous walled off topics than none at all. Joe Blow is going off the reservation gaining forbidden knowledge with an outcome in mind so he will have to get better at discerning theory from practice from hallucination quickly. This demand of instant information supply should lead to much less illusions being held and much fewer books sold. Experts are understandably upset by the changes AI brings to their world but the best of them will find a way to remain involved in the betterment of humanity if that is the reason they went down that path.

mpalmer 2y ago
Who said anything about human intelligence? Not OP. What topics were "walled-off" before AI? What knowledge is "forbidden"? How will Joe Blow get better at discerning hallucinations unless he gains expertise from non-AI sources?
- unraveller 2y ago
  You are aware of other intelligences he was referring to in his listicle then enlighten us. A pure distilled ideal form of intelligence will need a quality definition though so as not to smuggle the "living being / human" prerequisites for it in through the back door. Here he offers very incomplete notions implying intelligence is: not only doing bruteforce search and guesswork. Should he become aware it is doing extra the assertion presumably expands to include not only that too. All to preserve his bold but unfounded claim in the title. To forbid imperfect knowledge acquisition is to forbid knowledge, for it is a step on the way to knowledge. I hope you agree. Expertise is where you find it working best for you, btw I'm totally okay with threats from experts to down tools to show their disdain for AI but it won't happen in a meaningful sense because information leaks too well, it was just hard to organize pre-AI, walled-off needing to jump through courses/consulting/qualification/experience hoops and such. Consider that Joe Blow may only need slight correction once passing the mishmash of expertise fragments he gets from anywhere that humans are great at filling in. Feel free to talk about anything you feel I've omitted.
  - mpalmer 2y ago
    > To forbid imperfect knowledge acquisition is to forbid knowledge, for it is a step on the way to knowledge. I hope you agree. I do not agree because the statement is silly and wrong. You've made no real argument that anything is being forbidden. No one is proposing "forbidding" AI. Second, "forbidding imperfect knowledge acquisition" (a pretty tortured construction in the first place) is not the same thing as forbidding knowledge, because you can always get the knowledge elsewhere. It'll be more accurate too! > Consider that Joe Blow may only need slight correction once passing the mishmash of expertise fragments he gets from anywhere that humans are great at filling in. This is basically gibberish, and it seems to me that you're happy to talk about expertise in the abstract, probably because giving concrete examples about what you mean would require actually defending your ideas! > Feel free to talk about anything you feel I've omitted. You're omitting a lot, and hiding your lack of actual knowledge on the topic with confident pronouncements and over-flowery phrasing. Not unlike some generative models I know! You accuse OP of avoiding a definition for intelligence to serve his argument when it seems you're far more guilty of this.
Guvante 2y ago
There is some real progress being made in AI but for simple queries ChatGPT is basically Google but hides the source which makes illusions harder to spot. (After all humans got things wrong on the internet but your odds of guessing if they were are decent if they aren't trying to deceive) Honestly if AI could admit it was less certain I would be way more interested. The reality is LLM doesn't work like that. It doesn't know how accurate it is as it is as accurate as possible in its mind. Even in the real world people who aren't knowledgeable but know how to sound knowledgeable are a little dangerous. Too easy to be deceived.
az09mugen 2y ago
Totally agree with your last statement. For example, AI will make a clearer distinction between bad developers, incapable of doing anything without AI and good developers, having a deep understanding of what they do and using AI as an assistant that can do mistakes, so they can tear apart noise from relevant information.

mpalmer 2y ago

Who said anything about human intelligence? Not OP. What topics were "walled-off" before AI? What knowledge is "forbidden"? How will Joe Blow get better at discerning hallucinations unless he gains expertise from non-AI sources?

unraveller 2y ago
You are aware of other intelligences he was referring to in his listicle then enlighten us. A pure distilled ideal form of intelligence will need a quality definition though so as not to smuggle the "living being / human" prerequisites for it in through the back door. Here he offers very incomplete notions implying intelligence is: not only doing bruteforce search and guesswork. Should he become aware it is doing extra the assertion presumably expands to include not only that too. All to preserve his bold but unfounded claim in the title. To forbid imperfect knowledge acquisition is to forbid knowledge, for it is a step on the way to knowledge. I hope you agree. Expertise is where you find it working best for you, btw I'm totally okay with threats from experts to down tools to show their disdain for AI but it won't happen in a meaningful sense because information leaks too well, it was just hard to organize pre-AI, walled-off needing to jump through courses/consulting/qualification/experience hoops and such. Consider that Joe Blow may only need slight correction once passing the mishmash of expertise fragments he gets from anywhere that humans are great at filling in. Feel free to talk about anything you feel I've omitted.
- mpalmer 2y ago
  > To forbid imperfect knowledge acquisition is to forbid knowledge, for it is a step on the way to knowledge. I hope you agree. I do not agree because the statement is silly and wrong. You've made no real argument that anything is being forbidden. No one is proposing "forbidding" AI. Second, "forbidding imperfect knowledge acquisition" (a pretty tortured construction in the first place) is not the same thing as forbidding knowledge, because you can always get the knowledge elsewhere. It'll be more accurate too! > Consider that Joe Blow may only need slight correction once passing the mishmash of expertise fragments he gets from anywhere that humans are great at filling in. This is basically gibberish, and it seems to me that you're happy to talk about expertise in the abstract, probably because giving concrete examples about what you mean would require actually defending your ideas! > Feel free to talk about anything you feel I've omitted. You're omitting a lot, and hiding your lack of actual knowledge on the topic with confident pronouncements and over-flowery phrasing. Not unlike some generative models I know! You accuse OP of avoiding a definition for intelligence to serve his argument when it seems you're far more guilty of this.

Guvante 2y ago

There is some real progress being made in AI but for simple queries ChatGPT is basically Google but hides the source which makes illusions harder to spot. (After all humans got things wrong on the internet but your odds of guessing if they were are decent if they aren't trying to deceive) Honestly if AI could admit it was less certain I would be way more interested. The reality is LLM doesn't work like that. It doesn't know how accurate it is as it is as accurate as possible in its mind. Even in the real world people who aren't knowledgeable but know how to sound knowledgeable are a little dangerous. Too easy to be deceived.

az09mugen 2y ago

Totally agree with your last statement. For example, AI will make a clearer distinction between bad developers, incapable of doing anything without AI and good developers, having a deep understanding of what they do and using AI as an assistant that can do mistakes, so they can tear apart noise from relevant information.