3 ms·
but they are hallucinating. according to this reading they won't in the future but we will pretend that they still do because that allows us to let AI dominate.
by em-bee 2y ago
but they are hallucinating. according to this reading they won't in the future but we will pretend that they still do because that allows us to let AI dominate.
that makes no sense to me.
it's ok for AI to run the world because they just make up stuff anyways? don't we want the opposite? in order to allow AI to run the world, shouldn't we believe that they are foolproof and are always able to figure out the correct answer?
- tim333 2y agoI think he's saying "the complete domination of reality by these things" is going to happen whether we want it or not.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y agoIt is kinda interesting. I talked with a less technical member of my extended family over the holidays. Fairly successful guy in his chosen profession ( accounting ). To say he was skeptical is an understatement and he is typically the most pro-corporate shill you can find for a company to save a few bucks. I assumed he would be attempting to extol its virtues with the assumption that lower level work has errors anyway. I was wrong. Sadly, we didn't get to continue down that line since my kid started crying at that moment.
- tim333 2y agoYeah I'm interested in how it will play out. I can understand skepticism because the current AI isn't that good, but it'll keep improving.
- em-bee 2y agocount me among the skeptics. the big problem i see is that there is no way to verify whether any AI output is correct. it is already very hard to prove that a program is correct. proving that for AI is several levels more difficult, and even if it were possible the cost would be so high to make it not worth it.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y agoI am personally somewhere in between. Language models do allow me to do things I wouldn't have patience to do otherwise ( yesterday chatgpt was actually helpful with hunting down a bug it generated:P ). I think there is some real value here, but I do worry it will not be captured properly.
- mistermann 2y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic) It's kind of a moot point anyways, because Humans are highly averse to making sure their actions are logically sound. Take politics for example, not just the silly day today goings on of it, but more importantly the system that underlies it: it is beyond consideration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail_(politics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail_(politics) "The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club."
- em-bee 2y agoHumans are highly averse to making sure their actions are logically sound yes, but the illogical decisions of humans can be intuited or made to be understood, and thus also somewhat predicted. for example, a human deciding over someones social security benefits can be expected make a somewhat rational even if illogical decision, and in particular, past performance of a human can predict future performance, whereas for an AI this is completely unpredictable and therefore has a much higher risk of going wrong unexpectedly. also, humans can be reasoned with, again with a somewhat predictable outcome.
- mistermann 2y agoHave you considered the indirection in play, adequately?
- em-bee 2y agoprobably not. please elaborate
- mistermann 2y agoTwo forms: culture, semiotics Missing counteracting force: set theory
- em-bee 2y ago