3 ms·
Exactly. That's basically the problem with a lot of the current paradigm, they don't allow true generalisation. That's why some people say there won't be any AG
by fsndz 2y ago
Exactly. That's basically the problem with a lot of the current paradigm, they don't allow true generalisation. That's why some people say there won't be any AGI anytime soon: https://www.lycee.ai/blog/why-no-agi-openai https://www.lycee.ai/blog/why-no-agi-openai
- exe34 2y ago"true generalisation" isn't really something a lot of humans can do.
- fsndz 2y agothe thing is LLMs don't even do the kind of generalisations the dumbest human can do. while simultaneously doing some stuff the smartest human probably can't
- kaptainkarl 2y agoDescribes computers in general pretty well
- taneq 2y agoMoravec talked about this kind of thing in the '80s.
- godelski 2y ago> humans CAN do. I think people often get confused with claims - Humans CAN generalize - Humans CAN reason - Humans CAN be intelligent - Humans CAN be conscious Generalization[0] is something MOST humans CAN do, but MOST humans DO NOT do. Do not confuse "can" and "are". One of my pet peeves is how often qualifying words are just ignored. They are critical parts of any communication.[1] Another pet peeve is over anthropomorphization. Anthropomorphism is a useful tool, but.. well... we CAN over generalize ;) [0] I don't know what you mean by "true generalization". I'm not going to address that because you can always raise the bar for what is "true" and let's try to be more concrete. Maybe I misunderstand. I definitely misunderstand. [1] Classic example: someone says "most x are y" then there's a rebuttal of "but x_1 isn't y" or "I'm x and I'm not y" or some variation. Great! Most isn't all? This is not engaging in good faith and there's examples found with any qualifying word. It is quite common to see.
- fritzo 2y agoi feel like you're overgeneralizing here
- leptons 2y agoSadly, a lot of humans choose not to think. We're in an age of willful ignorance.