6 ms·

> They push the narrative that they’ve created something akin to human cognition This is your interpretation of what these companies are saying. I'd love to se

by lnenad 2y ago

> They push the narrative that they’ve created something akin to human cognition This is your interpretation of what these companies are saying. I'd love to see if some company specifically anything like that? Out of the last 100 years how many inventions have been made that could make any human awe like llms do right now? How many things from today when brought back into 2010 would make the person using it make it feel like they're being tricked or pranked? We already take them for granted even thought they've only been around for less than half of a decade. LLMs aren't a catch all solution to the world's problems; or something that is going to help us in every facet of our lives; or an accelerator for every industry that exists out there. But at no point in history could you talk to your phone about general topics, get information, practice language skills, build an assistant that teaches your kid about the basics of science, use something to accelerate your work in a many different ways etc... Looking at llms shouldn't be boolean, it shouldn't be between they're the best thing ever invented vs they're useless; but it seems like everyone presents the issue in this manner and Sabine is part of that problem.

gloosx 2y ago
No major company directly states "We have created human-like intelligence," they intentionally use suggestive language that leads people to think AI is approaching human cognition. This helps with hype, investment, and PR. >I'd love to see if some company specifically anything like that? 1. DeepMind researchers: Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4 - https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 2. "GPT-4 is not AGI, but it does exhibit more general intelligence than previous models." - Sam Altman 3. Musk has claimed that AI is on the path to "understanding the universe." His branding of Tesla's self-driving AI as "Full Self-Driving" (FSD) also misleadingly suggests a level of autonomous reasoning that doesn't exist. 4. Meta's AI chief scientist, Yann LeCun, has repeatedly said they are working on giving AI "common sense" and "world models" similar to how humans think. >Out of the last 100 years how many inventions have been made that could make any human awe like llms do right now? ELIZA is an early natural language processing computer program developed from 1964 to 1967 ELIZA's creator, Weizenbaum, intended the program as a method to explore communication between humans and machines. He was surprised and shocked that some people, including Weizenbaum's secretary, attributed human-like feelings to the computer program. 60 years ago. So as you can see, us humans are not too hard to fool with this.
- lnenad 2y ago
  > they intentionally use suggestive language that leads people to think AI is approaching human cognition. This helps with hype, investment, and PR. As do all companies in the world. If you want to buy a hammer, the company will sell it as the best hammer in the world. It's the norm. I don't know exactly what your point is with ELIZA? > So as you can see, us humans are not too hard to fool with this. I mean ok? How is that related to having a 30 minute conversation with ChatGPT where it teaches you a language? Or Claude outputting an entire application in a single go? Or having them guide you through fixing your fridge by uploading the instructions? Or using NotebookLM to help you digest a scientific paper?
  - gloosx 2y ago
    Im not saying LLMs are not impressive or useful — Im pointing out that corporations behind commercial AI models are capitalising on our emotional response to natural language prediction. This phenomenon isnt new – Weizenbaum observed it 60 years ago, even with the simplest of algorithms like ELIZA. Your example actually highlights this well. AI excels at language, so it’s naturally strong in teaching (especially for language learning ;)). But coding is different. It’s not just about syntax; it requires problem-solving, debugging, and system design — areas where AI struggles because it lacks true reasoning. There’s no denying that when AI helps you achieve or learn something new, it’s a fascinating moment — proof that we’re living in 2025, not 1967. But the more commercialised it gets, the more mythical and misleading the narrative becomes
    - lnenad 2y ago
      You originally said > They push the narrative that they’ve created something akin to human cognition I am saying they're not doing that, they're doing sales and marketing and it's you that interprets this as possible/true. In my analogy if the company said it's a hammer that can do anything, you wouldn't use it to debug elixir. You understand what hammers are for and you realize the scope is different. Same here. It's a tool that has its uses and limits. > Your example actually highlights this well. AI excels at language, so it’s naturally strong in teaching (especially for language learning ;)). But coding is different. It’s not just about syntax; it requires problem-solving, debugging, and system design — areas where AI struggles because it lacks true reasoning. I disagree since I use it daily and Claude is really good at coding. It's saving me a lot of time. It's not gonna build a new Waymo but I don't expect it to. But this is besides the point. In the original tweet what Sabine is implying is that it's useless and OpenAI should be worth less than a shoe factory. When in fact this is a very poor approach to look at LLMs and their value and both sides of the spectrum are problematic (those that say it's a catch all AGI and those that say hurr it couldn't solve P versus NP it's trash).
hansmayer 2y ago
How about Sam Altman literally saying on twitter "We know how to build AGI now"? That close enough?
- lnenad 2y ago
  How many examples of CEOs writing shit like that can you name? I can name more than one. Elon's been saying that camera driven level 5 autonomous driving will be ready in 2021. Did you believe him?
  - hansmayer 2y ago
    Elon? Never did, and for the record, also never really understood his fanboys. I never even bought a Tesla. And no, besides these two guys, I don´t really remember many other CEOs making such revolutionary statements. That is usually the case when people understand their technology and are not ready to bullshit. There is one small differentiation though: At least self-driving cars hype was believable because it seemed almost like a finite-search problem, like along the lines of, how hard could it be to process X input signals from lidars and image frames and marry it to an advanced variation of what is basically a PID controller. And at least there is a defined use-case. With genAI, we have no idea what the problem definition and even problem space is, and the main use-case that the companies seem to be pushing down our throats (aside from code assistants) is "summarising your email" and chatting with your smartphone, for lonely people. Ew, thanks, but no thanks.
    - lnenad 2y ago
      I mean you really don't know multiple CEOs in jail that hyped their stock to the moon? Theranos? Nikola? That's reallyyyy trying hard to minimise the capability of LLMs and their potentials that we're still discovering. But you do you I guess.
      - hansmayer 2y ago
        No mate, not everyone is trying hard to prove some guy on the Internet wrong. I do remember these two but to be honest, they were not on top of my mind in this context, probably because it's a different example - or what are you trying to say? That the people running AI companies should go to jail for deceiving their investors? This is different to Theranos. Holmes actively marketed and PRESENTED a "device" which did not exist as specified (they relied on 3rd party labs doing their tests in the background). For all that we know, OpenAI and their ilk are not doing that really. So you're on thin ice here. Amazon came close though, with their failed Amazon Go experiment, but they only invested their own money, so no damage was done to anyone. In either case your example is showing what? That lying is normal in the business world and should be done by the CEOs as part of their job description? That they should or should not go to jail for it? I am really missing your point here, no offence.
re-thc 2y ago
> Out of the last 100 years how many inventions have been made that could make any human awe like llms do right now? Lots e.g. vacuum cleaners. > But at no point in history could you talk to your phone You could always "talk" to your phone just like you could "talk" to a parrot or a dog. What does that even mean? If we're talking about LLMs, I still haven't been able to have a real conversation with 1. There's too much of a lag to feel like a conversation and often doesn't reply with anything related.
- jibal 2y ago
  Of course they aren't "real" conversations but I can dialog with LLMs as a means of clarifying my prompts. The comment about parrots and dogs is made in bad faith.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    > The comment about parrots and dogs is made in bad faith Not necessarily. (Some aphonic, adactyl downvoters seem to have possibly tried to nudge you into noticing that your idea above is against some entailed spirit the guidelines.) The poster may have meant that for the use natural to him, he feels in the results the same utility of discussing with a good animal. "Clarifying one's prompts" may be effective in some cases, but it's probably not what others seek. It is possible that many want the good old combination of "informative" and "insightful": in practice there may be issues with both.
    - re-thc 2y ago
      > "Clarifying one's prompts" may be effective in some cases but it's probably not what others seek It's not even that. Can the LLM run away, stop the conversation or even say no? It's as much as your boss "talking" to you about the task and not giving you a chance to respond. Is that a talk? It's 1-way. E.g. ask the LLM who invented Wikipedia. It will respond with "facts". If I ask a friend, the reply might be "look it up yourself". This a real conversation. Until then. Even parrots and dogs can respond differently than a forced reply exactly how you need it.
sevensor 2y ago
> This is your interpretation of what these companies are saying. I'd love to see if some company specifically anything like that? What is the layman to make of the claim that we now have “reasoning” models? Certainly sounds like a claim of human-like cognition, even though the reality is different.
- brookst 2y ago
  Studies have shown that corvids are capable of reasoning. Does that sound like a claim of human level cognition? I think you’re going too far in imagining what one group of people will make of what another group of people is saying, without actually putting yourself in either group.

by lnenad 2y ago

gloosx 2y ago

No major company directly states "We have created human-like intelligence," they intentionally use suggestive language that leads people to think AI is approaching human cognition. This helps with hype, investment, and PR. >I'd love to see if some company specifically anything like that? 1. DeepMind researchers: Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4 - https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 2. "GPT-4 is not AGI, but it does exhibit more general intelligence than previous models." - Sam Altman 3. Musk has claimed that AI is on the path to "understanding the universe." His branding of Tesla's self-driving AI as "Full Self-Driving" (FSD) also misleadingly suggests a level of autonomous reasoning that doesn't exist. 4. Meta's AI chief scientist, Yann LeCun, has repeatedly said they are working on giving AI "common sense" and "world models" similar to how humans think. >Out of the last 100 years how many inventions have been made that could make any human awe like llms do right now? ELIZA is an early natural language processing computer program developed from 1964 to 1967 ELIZA's creator, Weizenbaum, intended the program as a method to explore communication between humans and machines. He was surprised and shocked that some people, including Weizenbaum's secretary, attributed human-like feelings to the computer program. 60 years ago. So as you can see, us humans are not too hard to fool with this.

lnenad 2y ago
> they intentionally use suggestive language that leads people to think AI is approaching human cognition. This helps with hype, investment, and PR. As do all companies in the world. If you want to buy a hammer, the company will sell it as the best hammer in the world. It's the norm. I don't know exactly what your point is with ELIZA? > So as you can see, us humans are not too hard to fool with this. I mean ok? How is that related to having a 30 minute conversation with ChatGPT where it teaches you a language? Or Claude outputting an entire application in a single go? Or having them guide you through fixing your fridge by uploading the instructions? Or using NotebookLM to help you digest a scientific paper?
- gloosx 2y ago
  Im not saying LLMs are not impressive or useful — Im pointing out that corporations behind commercial AI models are capitalising on our emotional response to natural language prediction. This phenomenon isnt new – Weizenbaum observed it 60 years ago, even with the simplest of algorithms like ELIZA. Your example actually highlights this well. AI excels at language, so it’s naturally strong in teaching (especially for language learning ;)). But coding is different. It’s not just about syntax; it requires problem-solving, debugging, and system design — areas where AI struggles because it lacks true reasoning. There’s no denying that when AI helps you achieve or learn something new, it’s a fascinating moment — proof that we’re living in 2025, not 1967. But the more commercialised it gets, the more mythical and misleading the narrative becomes
  - lnenad 2y ago
    You originally said > They push the narrative that they’ve created something akin to human cognition I am saying they're not doing that, they're doing sales and marketing and it's you that interprets this as possible/true. In my analogy if the company said it's a hammer that can do anything, you wouldn't use it to debug elixir. You understand what hammers are for and you realize the scope is different. Same here. It's a tool that has its uses and limits. > Your example actually highlights this well. AI excels at language, so it’s naturally strong in teaching (especially for language learning ;)). But coding is different. It’s not just about syntax; it requires problem-solving, debugging, and system design — areas where AI struggles because it lacks true reasoning. I disagree since I use it daily and Claude is really good at coding. It's saving me a lot of time. It's not gonna build a new Waymo but I don't expect it to. But this is besides the point. In the original tweet what Sabine is implying is that it's useless and OpenAI should be worth less than a shoe factory. When in fact this is a very poor approach to look at LLMs and their value and both sides of the spectrum are problematic (those that say it's a catch all AGI and those that say hurr it couldn't solve P versus NP it's trash).

hansmayer 2y ago

How about Sam Altman literally saying on twitter "We know how to build AGI now"? That close enough?

lnenad 2y ago
How many examples of CEOs writing shit like that can you name? I can name more than one. Elon's been saying that camera driven level 5 autonomous driving will be ready in 2021. Did you believe him?
- hansmayer 2y ago
  Elon? Never did, and for the record, also never really understood his fanboys. I never even bought a Tesla. And no, besides these two guys, I don´t really remember many other CEOs making such revolutionary statements. That is usually the case when people understand their technology and are not ready to bullshit. There is one small differentiation though: At least self-driving cars hype was believable because it seemed almost like a finite-search problem, like along the lines of, how hard could it be to process X input signals from lidars and image frames and marry it to an advanced variation of what is basically a PID controller. And at least there is a defined use-case. With genAI, we have no idea what the problem definition and even problem space is, and the main use-case that the companies seem to be pushing down our throats (aside from code assistants) is "summarising your email" and chatting with your smartphone, for lonely people. Ew, thanks, but no thanks.
  - lnenad 2y ago
    I mean you really don't know multiple CEOs in jail that hyped their stock to the moon? Theranos? Nikola? That's reallyyyy trying hard to minimise the capability of LLMs and their potentials that we're still discovering. But you do you I guess.
    - hansmayer 2y ago
      No mate, not everyone is trying hard to prove some guy on the Internet wrong. I do remember these two but to be honest, they were not on top of my mind in this context, probably because it's a different example - or what are you trying to say? That the people running AI companies should go to jail for deceiving their investors? This is different to Theranos. Holmes actively marketed and PRESENTED a "device" which did not exist as specified (they relied on 3rd party labs doing their tests in the background). For all that we know, OpenAI and their ilk are not doing that really. So you're on thin ice here. Amazon came close though, with their failed Amazon Go experiment, but they only invested their own money, so no damage was done to anyone. In either case your example is showing what? That lying is normal in the business world and should be done by the CEOs as part of their job description? That they should or should not go to jail for it? I am really missing your point here, no offence.

re-thc 2y ago

> Out of the last 100 years how many inventions have been made that could make any human awe like llms do right now? Lots e.g. vacuum cleaners. > But at no point in history could you talk to your phone You could always "talk" to your phone just like you could "talk" to a parrot or a dog. What does that even mean? If we're talking about LLMs, I still haven't been able to have a real conversation with 1. There's too much of a lag to feel like a conversation and often doesn't reply with anything related.

jibal 2y ago
Of course they aren't "real" conversations but I can dialog with LLMs as a means of clarifying my prompts. The comment about parrots and dogs is made in bad faith.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > The comment about parrots and dogs is made in bad faith Not necessarily. (Some aphonic, adactyl downvoters seem to have possibly tried to nudge you into noticing that your idea above is against some entailed spirit the guidelines.) The poster may have meant that for the use natural to him, he feels in the results the same utility of discussing with a good animal. "Clarifying one's prompts" may be effective in some cases, but it's probably not what others seek. It is possible that many want the good old combination of "informative" and "insightful": in practice there may be issues with both.
  - re-thc 2y ago
    > "Clarifying one's prompts" may be effective in some cases but it's probably not what others seek It's not even that. Can the LLM run away, stop the conversation or even say no? It's as much as your boss "talking" to you about the task and not giving you a chance to respond. Is that a talk? It's 1-way. E.g. ask the LLM who invented Wikipedia. It will respond with "facts". If I ask a friend, the reply might be "look it up yourself". This a real conversation. Until then. Even parrots and dogs can respond differently than a forced reply exactly how you need it.

sevensor 2y ago

> This is your interpretation of what these companies are saying. I'd love to see if some company specifically anything like that? What is the layman to make of the claim that we now have “reasoning” models? Certainly sounds like a claim of human-like cognition, even though the reality is different.

brookst 2y ago
Studies have shown that corvids are capable of reasoning. Does that sound like a claim of human level cognition? I think you’re going too far in imagining what one group of people will make of what another group of people is saying, without actually putting yourself in either group.