6 ms·
(reacting to the title alone since the article is paywalled) AI can’t push a houseplant off a shelf, so there’s that. Talking about intelligence as a complete
by krig 2y ago
(reacting to the title alone since the article is paywalled)
AI can’t push a houseplant off a shelf, so there’s that.
Talking about intelligence as a completely disembodied concept seems meaningless. What does ”cat” even mean if comparing to something that doesn’t have a physical corporeal presence in time and space. To compare like this seems to me like making a fundamental category error.
edit: Quoting, “You’re going to have to pardon my French, but that’s complete B.S.”
I guess I’m just agreeing with LeCun here.
- jcranmer 2y agoIt's referring to the fact that cats are able to do tasks like multistage planning, which he asserts current AIs are unable to do.
- krig 2y agoThanks, that makes more sense than the title. :)
- dang 2y agoWe replaced the baity title with something suitably bland. If there's a representative phrase from the article itself that's neutral enough, we could use that instead.
- qarl 2y ago> It's referring to the fact that cats are able to do tasks like multistage planning, which he asserts current AIs are unable to do. I don't understand this criticism at all. If I go over to ChatGPT and say "From the perspective of a cat, create a multistage plan to push a houseplant off a shelf" it will satisfy my request perfectly.
- staticman2 2y agoChatGPT only decides what to write one token at a time.
- qarl 2y agoHmmm... You didn't really explain yourself - I'm not sure I understand your point. But guessing at what you mean - when I evaluate ChatGPT, I include all the trivial add-ons. For example, AutoGPT will create a plan like this and then execute the plan one step at a time. I think it would be silly to evaluate ChatGPT solely as a single execution endpoint.
- staticman2 2y agoAs I understand it a model simply predicts the next word- one word at a time. (The next token, actually, but for discussion sake we might pretend a token is identical to a word). The model does not "plan" anything, it has no idea how a sentence will end when it starts it as it only considers what word comes next- then what word after that- then what word after that. It discovers the sentence is over when the next token turns out to be a period. It discovers it's finished it's assignment when the next token turns out to be a stop token. So one could say the model provides the illusion of planning, but is never really planning anything other than what the next word to write is.
- qarl 2y agoHEH. Ok. Suppose I create the illusion of a calculator. I type in 5, then plus, then 5. And it gives me the illusional answer of 10. What's the difference?
- staticman2 2y agoTo use your metaphor the difference is we are discussing whether someone can invent a calculator that does new and exciting things using current calculator technology. You can't say "who cares if it's an illusion it works for me" when the topic is whether an attempt to build a better one will work for the stated goal.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sebastiennight 2y agoOut of curiosity, would you say a person with locked-in syndrome[0] is no longer intelligent? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked-in_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked-in_syndrome
- krig 2y agoI don’t think ”intelligent” is a particularly meaningful concept, and just leads to such confusion as your comment hints at. Do I think a person with locked-in syndrome is still a human being with thoughts, desires and needs? Yes. Do I think we can rank intelligences along an axis where a locked-in person somehow rates lower than a healthy person but higher than a cat? I don’t think so. A cat is very good at being a cat, much better than any human is.
- krig 2y agoI would also point out that a person with locked-in syndrome still has ”a physical corporeal presence in time and space”, they have carers, relationships, families, histories and lives beyond themselves that are inextricably tied to them as an intelligent being.