4 ms·
There are two logical problems with what you've written here. 1. You're counting "our day job" as one task, while counting all individual prompts an AI can ans
by wavemode 2y ago
There are two logical problems with what you've written here.
1. You're counting "our day job" as one task, while counting all individual prompts an AI can answer as each being their own task. This is obviously misleading (and I could just as easily perform the same compression in the opposite direction - chatbots can only do one task: "be a chatbot").
2. You're not controlling for training. It's already meaningless to compare the intelligence of one entity trained to do a task with another entity that was not trained to do that task.
But even ignoring those fallacies, what you've written here is still not true. 99% of things an LLM could supposedly "out-perform" a human at, the human would actually outperform if you provided that human with the same text resources the LLM used to conjure its answer. Regurgitating facts is not evidence of intelligence, and humans can do it easily (and do it without hallucinating, which is key) if you just give them access to the same information.
But when you go in the opposite direction, achieving parity is no longer so simple. When LLM's fail to do math, fail to strategize, fail to process rules of abstract games, etc. there is no textbook or lecture or article you can provide to the LLM that magically makes the problem go away. They are fundamental limitations of the AI's capabilities, rather than just a result of not possessing enough information.
What many people don't seem to realize is, when merely getting up in the morning and brushing your teeth you are already exercising more intelligence than any AI has ever possessed. (Anyone who has ever worked in robotics or visual processing can attest to that enthusiastically.) So don't even get me started on actual critical thinking.
- ben_w 2y agoNeither of those is a logical problem. 1. This is indeed a simplification, but for any single task in your day job, it would be those tasks where you have the most experience. For example, I used to write video games, AI does a better job of game design than me, but I'm the better programmer. 2. Unimportant, as the consideration I was rejecting was performance in tasks. As it happens, some of my other recent messages demonstrate that I agree they are low intelligence for this exact reason. > 99% of things an LLM could supposedly "out-perform" a human at, the human would actually outperform if you provided that human with the same text resources the LLM used to conjure its answer Could I pass a bar exam of a medical exam, by reading the public internet, with no notes and just from memory, which is what a base model does? Nope. Could I do it with a search engine, which is what RAG assisted LLMs do? Perhaps. > humans can do it easily (and do it without hallucinating Hell no we mess that up almost constantly. > When LLM's fail to do math, fail to strategize, fail to process rules of abstract games, etc. there is no textbook or lecture or article you can provide to the LLM that magically makes the problem go away I'm sure I've seen this done. I wonder if I'm hallucinating that certainty…
- wavemode 2y ago> Could I pass a bar exam of a medical exam, by reading the public internet, with no notes and just from memory, which is what a base model does? Nope. You're -still- ignoring the fact that these models spend millions of GPU-hours in training. I'm sure you could manage. > Hell no we mess that up almost constantly. "Almost constantly"? Is this satire? I'd fire any such person, and probably recommend them psychiatric treatment. AI-hype people really think so little of human beings? I certainly hope my pilot isn't "almost constantly" hallucinating his aviation training. > I'm sure I've seen this done. I wonder if I'm hallucinating that certainty… Show me the conversation.