3 ms·

Ah, yes, the typical learning experience. You are born and fed a firehose of all the content available in the world. Then, when you need to learn something, you

Ah, yes, the typical learning experience. You are born and fed a firehose of all the content available in the world. Then, when you need to learn something, you just firehose it all again from scratch with some added notes you made on a napkin. Can we at least agree that this cannot be compared with a human baby?

ben_w 2y ago
> Ah, yes, the typical learning experience. You are born and fed a firehose of all the content available in the world. You are indeed born being fed a firehose of experience. Is it all the content available in the world? No, it's much less ordered than that. Also much less content. If your point were to have been "current AI are thick because they need a lot of examples to learn anything", you'd have a much easier time with your claims. (Some people still argue that point because vision is high bandwidth, but nevertheless it would be easier to argue than setting the bar so high that no human could possibly get there). > Then, when you need to learn something, you just firehose it all again from scratch with some added notes you made on a napkin. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean in this analogy. > Can we at least agree that this cannot be compared with a human baby? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC27565/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC27565/ You can compare almost anything, if you want to. But why would it matter, that it's not like a baby? A baby treated the way you propose treating an AI, would still be somewhere between "feral" and "dead". That, even in isolation, is enough to show that your test is not well-conceived.
- alganet 2y ago
  > You can compare almost anything, if you want to. So, you're a self-declared sophist. We can't get anywhere from here, I am not.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Follow the link. And then ask yourself what point you're even trying to make, because without clarity on that, my point is that your point is unclear. AI are like brains in certain ways, by design even, and different in others. You have yet to provide any suggestion for which specific ways to test for that simultaneously pass humans and fail AI.
    - alganet 2y ago
      My first response about commoditization makes a fundamental observation about the nature of LLMs. Our discussion so far never touched that. You never actually adressed me, my most important claim remains unchecked, you just misderected the subject into an orchard.

ben_w 2y ago

> Ah, yes, the typical learning experience. You are born and fed a firehose of all the content available in the world. You are indeed born being fed a firehose of experience. Is it all the content available in the world? No, it's much less ordered than that. Also much less content. If your point were to have been "current AI are thick because they need a lot of examples to learn anything", you'd have a much easier time with your claims. (Some people still argue that point because vision is high bandwidth, but nevertheless it would be easier to argue than setting the bar so high that no human could possibly get there). > Then, when you need to learn something, you just firehose it all again from scratch with some added notes you made on a napkin. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean in this analogy. > Can we at least agree that this cannot be compared with a human baby? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC27565/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC27565/ You can compare almost anything, if you want to. But why would it matter, that it's not like a baby? A baby treated the way you propose treating an AI, would still be somewhere between "feral" and "dead". That, even in isolation, is enough to show that your test is not well-conceived.

alganet 2y ago
> You can compare almost anything, if you want to. So, you're a self-declared sophist. We can't get anywhere from here, I am not.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Follow the link. And then ask yourself what point you're even trying to make, because without clarity on that, my point is that your point is unclear. AI are like brains in certain ways, by design even, and different in others. You have yet to provide any suggestion for which specific ways to test for that simultaneously pass humans and fail AI.
  - alganet 2y ago
    My first response about commoditization makes a fundamental observation about the nature of LLMs. Our discussion so far never touched that. You never actually adressed me, my most important claim remains unchecked, you just misderected the subject into an orchard.