5 ms·
> Just a few years ago, passing the Turing test seemed an unattainable goal Who geniunely thought that? Eliza could almost fool a human and that was in the 196
by Ygg2 2y ago
> Just a few years ago, passing the Turing test seemed an unattainable goal
Who geniunely thought that? Eliza could almost fool a human and that was in the 1960...
LLMs are a neat thing for doing some tedious task but I saw them making plain stupid mistakes that makes my skin crawl.
- famouswaffles 2y agoEliza did not fool anybody for more than 5 seconds lol.
- CamperBob2 2y agoEliza did fool some humans. Which is why the Turing test was always a flawed notion, one that says more about the human than the computer. That aside, nothing you said about LLMs doesn't apply to humans as well.
- Jensson 2y ago> That aside, nothing you said about LLMs doesn't apply to humans as well. Humans make mistakes in a diverse way, that makes groups of them much better than an LLM that will amplify its own mistakes. Computer programs has to be extremely better than a single human since they lack the group dynamics of humans, so as long as you compare single humans to AI people will rightfully demand more from the AI. If all humans ran the same program and gave the same answers then humans would be way less useful, that is where LLM are today.
- CamperBob2 2y ago(Shrug) The only important thing is the time derivative. AI models are getting better over time, thanks to things like chain-of-thought reasoning, while humans are not. IMHO, LLMs will grow immensely in power once someone comes up with the right way to wrap them in a negative feedback loop to keep the hallucination "gain" under control. The result may no longer be recognizable as an LLM, but I'm pretty sure that the GPT concept will be recognized historically as the foundation for what follows.